United States District Court, N.D. Florida, Panama City Division
DONALD W. RAGER, Plaintiff,
WARDEN PAIGE AUGUSTINE, et al., Defendants.
ORDER ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
E. Walker United States District Judge
Court has considered, without hearing, the Magistrate
Judge's Report and Recommendation, ECF No. 103, and has
also reviewed de novo Plaintiff's objections to
the report and recommendation, ECF No. 105. The report and
recommendation is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED, over Plaintiff's
objections, as this Court's opinion, as to
Plaintiff's Fourth, Fifth, Eight, and Fourteenth
Amendment claims. But it is REJECTED to the extent that it
dismisses Plaintiff's First Amendment claims that could
be construed as retaliation claims.
Magistrate recommends dismissing the latter for failure to
state a claim because they do not allege actual injury. ECF
No. 103, at 31-34. District courts, however, must liberally
construe prisoners' pro se complaints at the motion to
dismiss stage. Williams v. McCall, 531 F.2d 1247
(5th Cir. 1976) (quoting Haines v. Kerner, 404
U.S. 519 (1972)). This Court, accepting the complaint's
allegations as true and in the light most favorable to
plaintiff, could reasonably construe Plaintiff's First
Amendment claims as retaliation claims, which need not allege
actual injury. Pittman v. Tucker, 213 F.App'x
867, 870 (11th Cir. 2007). Indeed, Plaintiff alleges that
Defendants threatened to harm him, return him to solitary
confinement, and transfer him to another facility unless he
stopped filing grievances. ECF No. 15, at 14-17, ¶15-19,
24. Accordingly, the report and recommendation is REJECTED in
part, and Defendants' motions to dismiss are DENIED in
part, as to Plaintiff's First Amendment claims that could
be construed as retaliation claims, which are not otherwise
barred by the statute of limitations. ECF No. 103, at 29.
IT IS ORDERED:
Except for Parts II.A and II.B.1, ECF no. 103, the report and
recommendation is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED as this Court's
opinion. The report and recommendation is REJECTED in part as
to Parts II.A and II.B.1.
Defendants' motions to dismiss, ECF Nos. 49, 64, 67, 72
are ACCEPTED as to Plaintiff's Fourth, Fifth, Eight, and
Fourteenth Amendment claims, but REJECTED in part as to
Plaintiff's First Amendment claims that could be
construed as retaliation claims and are not otherwise barred
by the statute of limitations. ECF No. 103, at 29.
Court does not direct entry of judgment under Rule
case is remanded to the Magistrate for further proceedings on
Plaintiff's First Amendment retaliation claims consistent
with this order.
 The Eleventh Circuit, in Bonner v.
City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 (11th Cir.1981)
(en banc), adopted as binding precedent all decisions of the
former Fifth Circuit handed ...