WALKER
v.
UNKNOWN PARTIES
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.
In this prisoner civil rights case, the District Court for the Middle District of Florida granted defendants' motion to dismiss Walker's Second Amended Complaint, finding that plaintiff failed to allege a valid Bivens claim and that state law claims cannot be brought in federal court.
The court held that the Second Amended Complaint fails to allege a valid Bivens claim and that state law claims cannot be brought in federal court against federal defendants, warranting dismissal of the complaint.
[1] A federal court reviews a magistrate judge's report and recommendation de novo in the absence of an objection.
[2] A Bivens claim may not be brought in federal court if it is a state claim.
Previewing 2 of 4 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 magistrate judge found that the Second Amended Complaint (Dkt. 31) fails to allege a Bivens claim. The report explains why this state claim may not be brought in federal court.”
Establishes the core legal deficiency identified in the complaint—failure to allege a valid federal cause of action and improper inclusion of state law claims in federal court.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWalker, an inmate at United States Penitentiary Coleman #2, filed a Second Amended Complaint against prison officials FNU Wegner, FNU Velasquez, FNU S…
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.
This cause comes before the Court on the motion to dismiss Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint, which was filed by Defendants FNU Wegner, FNU Velasquez, FNU Summerfield (Dkt. 56). The United States Magistrate Judge issued a report recommending that the motion be granted and the Second Amended Complaint (Dkt. 31) be dismissed. Dkt. 67. The time for filing objections has passed.
After an independent review of the record, the Court may accept, reject, or modify the 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 Second Amended Complaint (Dkt. 31) fails to allege a Bivens claim. The report explains why this state claim may not be brought in federal court. 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 (Dkt. 67) is adopted, confirmed, and approved in all respects and made a part of this order.
2. The Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 56) is GRANTED.
3. Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint (Dkt. 31) is dismissed in accord with the Report and Recommendation.
4. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of Defendants and close the case.
DONE AND ORDERED at Tampa, Florida, on May 22, 2024.
WILLIAM F. JUNG UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
COPIES FURNISHED TO: Plaintiff, pro se Counsel of record
2