James Robinson v. Alcornelia Terry, et al.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHERN DIVISION JAMES ROBINSON, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) CASE NO. 2:24-CV-00358-BL-JTA ) ALCORNELIA TERRY, et al., ) ) Defendants. ) ORDER1 Plaintiff James Robinson, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed a Second Amended Complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. 22). On April 25, 2025, Defendants Steve Marshall (“Marshall”) and John Hamm (“Hamm”) filed a Motion for Summary Judgment arguing that the Plaintiff’s “release date has been calculated correctly” and that the “doctrine of res judicata bars the instant action.” (See Doc.

29). On August 28, 2025, the Magistrate Judge recommended that the court grant Defendants Marshall and Hamm’s Motion for Summary Judgment (doc. 29), dismiss the case against Defendants Marshall and Hamm, and dismiss the case against Defendant Alcornelia Terry—who has not appeared in this case—as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). (Doc. 35). The Plaintiff filed objections to the recommendation. (Docs. 36, 38).

A district court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). A district judge must “make a de novo determination of those portions of the [magistrate judge’s] report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3) (“The district judge must determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge's disposition that has been properly objected to.”). A district court’s obligation to “make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made” requires a district judge to “give fresh consideration to those issues to which specific objection has been made by a party.” United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 673, 675 (1980) (internal quotations and citations omitted) (emphasis in Raddatz).

In his objections, the Plaintiff merely restates the facts that the Magistrate Judge considered in her recommendation and fails to challenge a specific factual finding or legal conclusion of the Magistrate Judge. The Plaintiff asserts that, although the Magistrate Judge makes reference to the prior civil complaint and refers to the ruling in that case, see Robinson v. Hamm, Case No. 1:19-CV-00039-WKW- JTA, the Magistrate Judge failed to mention “the ruling which was done by the [Eleventh] Circuit on [that] complaint.”2 (Doc. 36 at 2). However, the Magistrate Judge’s lack of reference to the Plaintiff’s appeal of his prior civil complaint does not change the legal or factual basis of the Report and Recommendation and, as such, the Plaintiff’s objections do not substantively affect the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. Because the Plaintiff failed to identify an error in the Magistrate Judge’s factual findings or legal conclusions, the court OVERRULES the Platiniff’s objections, (docs. 36, 38).

After careful review of the file and upon consideration of the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, the court ADOPTS the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. Accordingly, it is ORDERED as follows: 1. The court GRANTS Defendants Marshall and Hamm’s Motion for Summary Judgment (doc. 29) and enters judgment in favor of Marshall and Hamm on all claims and against Plaintiff.

2. The court DISMISSES with prejudice all claims against Defendant Alcornelia Terry as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).3

DONE and ORDERED on this the 13th day of March, 2026.

BILL LEWIS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Terry with prejudice. See Crenshaw v. Ellis, No. 2:25-cv-87-WKW, 2026 WL 358292, at *4 (M.D. Ala. Feb. 9, 2026) (dismissing Plaintiff's § 1983 claims “with prejudice as barred by res judicata and as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)”).