Stovall v. Gwathney et al, No. 5:2022cv01110 - Document 40 (N.D. Ala. 2024)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge R David Proctor on 6/6/2024. (KAM)

Download PDF
Stovall v. Gwathney et al Doc. 40 FILED 2024 Jun-06 PM 03:48 U.S. DISTRICT COURT N.D. OF ALABAMA UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHEASTERN DIVISION MICHAEL LEON1 STOVALL Plaintiff, v. SCOTT SCHAFFER, et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. 5:22-cv-1110-RDP-GMB MEMORANDUM OPINION The Magistrate Judge entered a Report and Recommendation on May 1, 2024 recommending the dismissal of this action without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) as frivolous and for failing to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. (Doc. 36). Plaintiff Michael Leon Stovall has filed a “Motion in Rebuttal to Magistrate Report and Recommendation,” which the court construes as an objection to the Report and Recommendation. (Doc. 39). Plaintiff objects to the Clerk of Court’s termination of defendants who were not named as defendants in his Final Amended Complaint. (Doc. 39 at 1-2). The court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that the order to amend instructed Plaintiff to name as defendants only those persons who violated his constitutional rights and identify them as defendants both in the heading and in Part I of the complaint. (Doc. 18 at 3). The order also told Plaintiff that the Final Amended Complaint cannot refer back to any previous complaints.2 (Doc. 18 at 1). Because Plaintiff did not name the “original defendants” in his Final Amended Complaint, the Clerk correctly In his Final Amended Complaint, Plaintiff identifies his middle name as “Leon” but indicates that he also has been known as “Michael Levon Stovall.” (Doc. 25 at 2). The Alabama Department of Corrections has registered Plaintiff as “Michael Levon Stovall.” See 1 2 After filing his original complaint, Plaintiff filed Second, Third, and Fourth Amended Complaints. See Docs. 15, 16 & 17. terminated those defendants from this action. Plaintiff’s remaining objections to the Report and Recommendation are frivolous and without merit. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s objections are OVERRULED. After careful consideration of the record in this case, the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, and Plaintiff’s objections, the court ADOPTS the Report and ACCEPTS the recommendation. Consistent with that recommendation and 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b), this action is due to be dismissed without prejudice as frivolous and for failing to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. A final judgment will be entered. DONE and ORDERED this June 6, 2024. _________________________________ R. DAVID PROCTOR CHIEF U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.