JOHNSON
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Johnson filed a civil rights complaint against federal prison officials and the Bureau of Prisons. The district court adopted a magistrate judge's recommendation, granting in part and denying in part a motion to dismiss, allowing Johnson's Bivens claims against two individual defendants and his Federal Tort Claims Act claim against the United States to proceed.
The court granted the motion to dismiss as to the Federal Bureau of Prisons, Antonelli, and Graham, finding the complaint failed to state a claim against them. The court denied the motion to dismiss as to Berman and Li's Bivens claims and the United States' Federal Tort Claims Act claim, allowing those claims to proceed.
[1] A federal agency, such as the Federal Bureau of Prisons, is not a suable entity.
[2] A plaintiff must state a claim upon which relief can be granted to proceed with a lawsuit.
Previewing 2 of 6 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“The Court reviews the legal conclusions de novo in the absence of an objection.”
Establishes the standard of review the district court applies to a magistrate judge's report and recommendation
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJohnson filed a complaint against the Federal Bureau of Prisons and four individual defendants: B.M. Antonelli, Richard Li, Michael Berman, and M. Gra…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Bivens Claim cases and more on FLexlaw
This cause comes before the Court on the motion to dismiss Mr. Johnson's complaint, which was filed by Defendants the Federal Bureau of Prisons, B.M. Antonelli, M. Graham, Michael Berman, and Richard Li. (Doc. 20). The United States Magistrate Judge issued a report recommending that the motion be granted to the extent that the Federal Bureau of Prisons, Antonelli, and Graham should be dismissed from this case, and denied to the extent that Johnson's Bivens claims against Li and Berman should proceed. (Doc. 27). The time for filing objections has passed.
After an independent review of the record, the Court may accept, reject, or modify a magistrate judge's report and recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The Court reviews the legal conclusions de novo in the absence of an objection. See LeCroy v. McNeil, 397 F. App'x 554, 556 (11th Cir. 2010) (citation omitted); Cooper-Houston v.
S. Ry. Co., 37 F. 3d 603, 604 (11th Cir. 1994). The Magistrate Judge found that the complaint (Doc. 1) fails to state a claim against the Federal Bureau of Prisons, Antonelli, and Graham, but states a claim against Berman and Li. (Doc. 27). The motion to dismiss did not address Mr. Johnson's Federal Tort Claims Act claim against the United States and the Magistrate Judge therefore found that the claim should proceed. (Doc. 27). After conducting an independent examination of the file, the Court agrees with the well-reasoned Report and Recommendation and rules as follows:
1. The Report and Recommendation (Doc. 27) is adopted, confirmed, and approved in all respects and made a part of this order.
2. The Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 20) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.
3. Plaintiff's claims against the Federal Bureau of Prisons, B.M. Antonelli, and M. Graham are DISMISSED in accordance with the Report and Recommendation.
4. Defendants Michael Berman, Richard Li, and the United States are ordered to answer or otherwise respond to the complaint (Doc. 1) within SIXTY (60) DAYS from the date of this order.
DONE AND ORDERED at Tampa, Florida, on August 8, 2024.
WILLIAM F. JUNG UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
COPIES FURNISHED TO: Plaintiff, pro se Counsel of record
2