CLAY v. TOOMBS COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA STATESBORO DIVISION

KENNETH CLAY,

Plaintiff, CIVIL ACTION NO.: 6:18-cv-92

v.

TOOMBS COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE; ROBYN BANKS; JAMES RON BIVENS; and DOUG MAYBIN,

Defendants.

O RDER Presently before the Court are Plaintiff’s Objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation and his appeal of the Magistrate Judge’s Order denying his Motion to Appoint Counsel, (doc. 100). For the reasons set forth below, the Court OVERRULES Plaintiff’s Objections, DENIES Plaintiff’s appeal of his Motion to Appoint Counsel, and ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation as the opinion of the Court. DISCUSSION I. Plaintiff’s Objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation The Magistrate Judge recommended the Court dismiss Plaintiff’s claims against the Toombs County Sheriff’s Office and Doug Maybin, dismiss without prejudice Plaintiff’s claims for injunctive relief, and deny as premature Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment. (Doc. 88, pp. 1–2). However, the Magistrate Judge recommended Plaintiff’s claims for monetary damages against Defendants Banks and Bivens be stayed pending the resolution of Plaintiff’s parallel state court proceeding. (Id.) Plaintiff objects to the Magistrate Judge’s Report. (Doc. 100). When a party objects to a Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, the district court must review the disputed portions de novo. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Palacios v. United States, 452 F. App’x 875, 877 (11th Cir. 2011). The Court has conducted an independent and de novo review of the entire record and concurs with the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation. (Doc. 88). In his

Objections, Plaintiff makes assertions regarding Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 and qualified immunity. (Doc. 100, pp. 4–13). Plaintiff’s Objections are not responsive to the Magistrate Judge’s recommendations. Thus, the Court OVERRULES Plaintiff’s Objections and ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge’s recommendations as the opinion of the Court. II. Plaintiff’s Appeal of his Motion to Appoint Counsel Plaintiff appeals the Magistrate Judge’s denial of his Motion to Appoint Counsel. (Doc. 100, pp. 13–17). A district judge must consider a party’s objections to a magistrate judge’s order on a pretrial matter. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). However, the district judge may modify or set aside that order, and reconsider the pretrial matter, only “where it has been shown that the magistrate judge’s order is clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” 28

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). The Magistrate Judge’s conclusion that Plaintiff is not entitled to the appointment of counsel is not clearly erroneous, nor is it contrary to law. The Court DENIES Plaintiff’s appeal. The Court’s Order dated March 3, 2020, remains the Order of the Court. (Doc. 87). CONCLUSION Accordingly, the Court OVERRULES Plaintiff’s Objections and ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation as the opinion of the Court. The Court DISMISSES Plaintiff’s claims against the Toombs County Sheriff’s Office and Doug Maybin and DISMISSES without prejudice Plaintiff’s claims for injunctive relief. The Court DENIES as premature Plaintiff’ s Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiffs claims for monetary damages are STAYED pending the resolution of the parallel state court proceedings. Finally, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s appeal of the denial of his Motion to Appoint Counsel. SO ORDERED, this 2nd day of June, 2020. f S pe L yA

R. STAN BAKER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA