Summary
holding the plaintiff's pro se complaint failed to "allege[] any facts showing that the Sheriff . . . had any knowledge or reason to know of the dead-docketing of his case yet remained deliberately indifferent to his continued detention"
Summary of this case from Woody v. SpiresOpinion
CASE NO. CV409-045.
July 16, 2009
ORDER
After a careful de novo review of the Record in this case, the Court concurs with the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (Doc. 6), to which objections have been filed (Doc. 10). Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is ADOPTED as the Opinion of the Court.
The allegations contained in Plaintiff's Complaint, if true, may very well entitle him to relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Cannon v. Macon County, 1 F.3d 1558, 1561-64 (11th Cir. 1993) (recognizing "constitutional right to be free from continued detention after it was or should have been known that the detainee was entitled to release"), see generally Davis v. Hall, 375 F.3d 703, 714 (8th Cir. 2004) (listing various Courts of Appeals cases recognizing constitutional right to be released upon expiration of states' authority to incarcerate). However, Plaintiff must bring his claims against those individuals whose negligence resulted in his prolonged incarceration. Specifically, Plaintiff must allege that a defendant, who was a state actor, was responsible for making sure he was released from prison following the State's decision not to prosecute his case. See Cannon, 1 F.3d 1558.
SO ORDERED