Harris v. Gwinnett County, State of Georgia, No. 1:2018cv04217 - Document 7 (N.D. Ga. 2018)
Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING the Magistrate Judge's 3 Final Report and Recommendation. This case is hereby DISMISSED, and the Plaintiff's 5 Motion for Writ of Mandamus and 6 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus are DENIED AS MOOT. Signed by Judge Eleanor L. Ross on 10/11/2018. (sap)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Harris v. Gwinnett County, State of Georgia Doc. 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COttT FOR THE NORTIIERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION NORFLETT IIARRIS, PRISONER CIVIL RIGHTS ID#17015984, 42 UoS.C.§ 1983 Plaintifé CIVIL ACTION FILE NO. 1:18-CV… 4217-ELR JKL V. GWINNETT COUNTY, STATE OF GEORGIA, Defendant. ORDER This matter is before the Court on the Magistrate Judge's Final Report and Recommendation ("R&R") (Doc. 3), Plaintiff 5), and Plaintiff s s Motion for Writ of Mandamus (Doc. Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 6). In reviewing a Magistrate Judge's R&R, the district court "shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made." 28 U.S.C. $ 636(b)(1). "Parties filing objections to a magistrate's report and recommendation must specifically identiff those findings objected to. Frivolous, conclusive, or general objections need not be considered by the district court." United States v. Schultz,565 F.3d 1353, 1361 (11th Cir. 2OO9) (quoting Marsden v. Moore,847 F.2d 1536, 1548 (11th Cir. Dockets.Justia.com 1988)) (internal quotation marks omitted). Absent objection, the district judge "may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings and recommendations made by the magistrate ffudge]," 28 U.S.C. $ 636(b)(1), and "need only satisff itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record" in order to accept the recommendation. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72, advisory committee note, 1983 Addition, Subdivision (b). In the R&R, the Magistrate Judge recommends dismissing this case because Plaintiff seeks to be acquitted and released from state charges. Such relief is not available in a $ 1983 action. The Magistrate Judge declined to construe Plaintiff s complaint as a petition for habeas corpus relief because Plaintiff has not exhausted his state court remedies as required under federal law. These state court remedies include mandamus and habeas corpus relief. The Magistrate Judge further concluded that abstention is appropriate in this case pursuant to Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 , 46, 53-54 (1971). Lastly, the Magistrate Judge noted that Plaintiff s complaint did not establish a basis for liability against Gwinnett County, the only named defendant. In response, Plaintiff did not object to the R&R, but instead filed a motion for a writ of mandamus and a petition for writ of habeas corpus. As the Magistrate Judge noted in the R&R, Plaintiff must pursue this relief in state court before seeking relief in federal court. Plaintiff s filings do not indicate a basis to reject or modify the conclusions reached in the R&R. Finding no clear effor in the R&R, the Court ADOPTS the R&R as the Order and Opinion of this Court [Doc. 3], DISMISSES this case, and DENIES AS MOOT Plaintiff s Motion for Writ of Mandamus [Doc. 5] and Plaintiff s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus [Doc 6]. The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to close this case. SO ORDERED tnis -1y'hay of October, 2018. ELEANOR L.ROSS 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.
