Summary
This district court order addresses a pro se plaintiff's objections to a magistrate judge's report and recommendation in a civil rights action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court finds the plaintiff's objections improper and untimely, ruling that they fail to specifically identify findings or raise new arguments. Consequently, the court adopts the magistrate judge's recommendations, granting the motion to dismiss the claims against defendant McLain with prejudice while allowing claims against defendants Atumah and McLain in their official capacities to proceed.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether plaintiff’s untimely and improper objections to the magistrate judge’s report should be considered
- Whether plaintiff’s failure‑to‑supervise claim against McLain states a claim under 42 U.S.C. §1983
Holdings
- The untimely and improper objections are overruled; the court will not consider the second set of objections and adopts the magistrate judge’s report de novo.
- The failure‑to‑supervise claim does not state a claim because supervisory officials are not liable absent personal involvement or a sufficient causal connection.
Key quotations
“When there have been no timely objections to a report, or the objections are improper, “the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), advisory committee’s notes to 1983 amendment.” (at 9)
““Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72, a party has 14 days to file objections to the proposed findings and recommendations of the magistrate judge.”” (at 320)
Factual background
Jerrodrick Campbell, pro se, alleges that Defendant Atumah used excessive force and that Defendant McLain retaliated against him and failed to supervise subordinates. Campbell submitted medical documentation of a sick call and mental‑health treatment in his objections.
Procedural history
The case was referred to a magistrate judge who recommended granting Defendant McLain’s motion to dismiss. Plaintiff objected, but the second set of objections was untimely. The district court reviewed the objections de novo and adopted the magistrate’s recommendation.