Mickel Shepherd v. Stan Wilson, 663 F. App'x 813

Shepherd alleged he was beaten and falsely arrested at a Clarke‑Washington Electric Cooperative annual meeting on Sept. 13, 2011, and that defendants prompted subsequent criminal prosecution in state court.
He sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and related state/local law claims against individual defendants (Wilson, Stringer, Carpenter) and the Cooperative.
The Magistrate Judge recommended dismissal: Carpenter for lack of plausible § 1983 allegations; Carpenter and Stringer as time‑barred under Alabama’s two‑year tort statute; and Wilson/Cooperative because they were not state actors. Remaining state claims were to be dismissed without prejudice.
Shepherd failed to timely and effectively object to the R&R (filed only a “blanket objection” and a late extension request). The district court adopted the R&R, denied his motions for an extension and leave to amend, and entered judgment for defendants.
On appeal Shepherd pressed three issues: (1) statute‑of‑limitations dismissal of claims against Stringer (and argued Carpenter dismissal was time‑barred though abandoned on other grounds); (2) denial of an extension to object to the R&R; and (3) denial of leave to amend. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Shepherd's § 1983 claims against Stringer were time‑barred	Limitations did not accrue until state court dismissed charges in 2014, so claim timely	Accrual occurred at arrest (detention pursuant to legal process) on Sept. 13, 2011, so two‑year limitations expired in 2013	Affirmed: claim barred — accrual at arrest, complaint filed after limitations period
Whether district court abused discretion in denying extension to object to the R&R	Counsel cited electronic access problems and filed extension motion before deadline; extension harmless to defendants	Counsel had access to R&R (addressed merits), filed the extension late at night, no good cause shown	Affirmed: denial of extension not an abuse of discretion
Whether denial of leave to amend was erroneous	Proposed amended complaint would cure defects and state claims	Proposed amendment was futile — it did not cure lack of state‑actor allegations, statute‑of‑limitations or specificity problems	Affirmed (plain‑error review): denial appropriate because amendment would be futile

La Grasta v. First Union Sec., Inc., 358 F.3d 840 (11th Cir. 2004) (standard of review for Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal)
Surtain v. Hamlin Terrace Found., 789 F.3d 1239 (11th Cir. 2015) (plausibility pleading standard)
Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384 (2007) (federal accrual rules for § 1983; false‑arrest claim accrues at detention pursuant to legal process)
Cockrell v. Sparks, 510 F.3d 1307 (11th Cir. 2007) (futility as a basis to deny leave to amend)
Farley v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 197 F.3d 1322 (11th Cir. 1999) (plain‑error review standards)