Opinion
Civil Action No. 5:07-cv-165 (HL).
May 29, 2007
ORDER
This matter is before the Court on the Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Claude W. Hicks, Jr., entered May 8, 2007 (Doc. 6). Plaintiff, James Andre Coverson, has filed written objections to the Recommendation, as permitted by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The Court, having given de novo consideration to those portions of the Recommendation to which objection is made, hereby accepts the Recommendation.
In his complaint, Coverson alleged that Sergeant Beasley violated his right to be free from excessive force and that Beasley was deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs. Coverson also alleged that Beasley violated his right to due process by not reviewing an "advocate request" form with him. Judge Hicks recommended that Coverson's due process claim against Beasley be dismissed because it is not cognizable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Judge Hicks recommended that the excessive force and deliberate indifference claims be allowed to go forward against all Defendants, including Defendant Beasley.
Apparently not understanding that only the due process claim against Beasley was being dismissed, Coverson objected to having Beasley dismissed from the case, stating, "I would like to keep Sergeant Beasley on my complaint for cruel and unusual punishment." (Obj. at 1.) While expressing that he wished to keep Beasley in the case for the "force" and "medical treatment" claims, Coverson added, "I want to take him off for the claim that I stated on my complaint." (Obj. at 1.) The Court construes this statement to refer to the due process claim, which is the claim that Judge Hicks recommended for dismissal.
It thus appears to the Court that Coverson has no objection to the dismissal of the due process claim against Beasley, which is the claim that Judge Hicks recommended for dismissal. Beasley, and those claims against him as to which Coverson has raised objection-excessive force and deliberate indifference-remain in the case. Therefore, the objections that Coverson has raised have no merit. In view of the foregoing, the Court accepts the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, and Coverson's due process claim against Sergeant Beasley is dismissed from this action.