Richard Jerome Hammonds v. Attorney Mark Shellnut

FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
OCTOBER 12, 2010
JOHN LEY
CLERK
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 09-14963
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D. C. Docket No. 09-00074-CV-CDL-4
RICHARD JEROME HAMMONDS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
MARK SHELLNUT, LLC,
JOHN G. COGNER,
personally and in his professional capacity,
ROBERT B. BRICKERSTAFF,
personally and in his official capacity,
EDWIN ALBRIGHT,
Esq.,
THE METRO NARCOTICS TASK FORCE, et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Georgia
_________________________
(October 12, 2010)

-- 1 of 3 --

Before EDMONDSON, BARKETT and MARTIN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Richard Jerome Hammonds, a federal prisoner, appeals the dismissal of his
pro se 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint as barred by the applicable statute of
limitations. On appeal, Hammonds alleges that the defendants violated his Fourth
Amendment and due process rights by improperly confiscating and retaining his
personal property following a forfeiture hearing in state court.
Federal courts look to state law to determine the applicable statute of
limitations for actions brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Rozar v. Mullis, 85
F.3d 556, 561 (11th Cir. 1996). In Georgia, the applicable statute of limitations for
personal injury actions is two years. O.C.G.A. § 9-3-33. To determine when the
cause of action accrues, we look to when the plaintiff knew or should have known
of his injury and its cause. Rozar, 85 F.3d at 561-62.
Upon careful review of the record and consideration of Hammonds’s brief,
we affirm, finding no error in the district court’s conclusion that Hammonds’s
claims were barred by the 2-year statute of limitations for personal injury actions.
Thus, Hammonds’s complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could be
granted. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, a district court must dismiss the
2

-- 2 of 3 --

complaint of a prisoner if the complaint “is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a
claim upon which relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1). Accordingly,
the district court properly dismissed Hammond’s complaint.
AFFIRMED.
3

-- 3 of 3 --