Slate v. Christine et al, No. 6:2017cv01272 - Document 12 (N.D. Ala. 2018)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Madeline Hughes Haikala on 11/13/2018. (KEK)

Download PDF
Slate v. Christine et al Doc. 12 FILED 2018 Nov-13 AM 11:53 U.S. DISTRICT COURT N.D. OF ALABAMA UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA JASPER DIVISION LACY SLATE, JR., Plaintiff, v. DR. BRIAN CHRISTINE, et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No.: 6:17-cv-01272-MHH-SGC MEMORANDUM OPINION On July 28, 2017, pro se plaintiff Lacy Slate, Jr. filed this action against defendants Brian Christine, Rebecca L. Holmes, St. Vincent’s Hospital, and Brookwood Medical Center. (Doc. 1, p. 1). Mr. Slate also asked for permission to proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc. 2). The magistrate judge to whom this case originally was assigned granted Mr. Slate’s in forma pauperis request on October 17, 2017. (Doc. 5, p. 2). The magistrate judge pointed out several pleading and jurisdictional deficiencies in Mr. Slate’s complaint and ordered Mr. Slate to file an amended complaint. (Doc. 5, pp. 2-7). Mr. Slate did so on May 11, 2018. (Doc. 9). The magistrate judge reviewed Mr. Slate’s amended complaint and recommended that the Court dismiss without prejudice Mr. Slate’s amended complaint for lack of jurisdiction. (Doc. 10, p. 1). The magistrate judge explained Dockets.Justia.com that Mr. Slate’s complaint does not contain a claim based on federal law, and Mr. Slate’s factual allegations do not suggest that this Court may exercise diversity jurisdiction over Mr. Slate’s state law action. (Doc. 10). The magistrate judge advised Mr. Slate of his right to object to her recommendation within fourteen (14) days. (Doc. 10, p. 9). To date, Mr. Slate has not objected to the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. A district court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). A district court reviews legal conclusions in a report de novo and reviews for plain error factual findings to which no objection is made. Garvey v. Vaughn, 993 F.2d 776, 779 n. 9 (11th Cir. 1993); see also LoConte v. Dugger, 847 F.2d 745, 749 (11th Cir. 1988); Macort v. Prem, Inc., 208 Fed. Appx. 781, 784 (11th Cir. 2006). Based on its review of the record in this case, the Court finds no misstatements of law in the report and no plain error in the magistrate judge’s description of Mr. Slate’s factual allegations. Therefore, the Court adopts the magistrate judge’s report and accepts her recommendation. The Court will issue a separate final order consistent with this memorandum opinion. 2 DONE and ORDERED this 13th day of November, 2018. _________________________________ MADELINE HUGHES HAIKALA UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 3

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.