Christopher F. Jones v. State of Georgia; Richmond County; Ashley Wright, Superior Court Judge; and Jared T. Williams, District Attorney

S.D. Georgia

Christopher F. Jones v. State of Georgia; Richmond County; Ashley Wright, Superior Court Judge; and Jared T. Williams, District Attorney

DecidedNovember 13, 2025

Docket1:25-cv-00125

StatusUnknown

This text of Christopher F. Jones v. State of Georgia; Richmond County; Ashley Wright, Superior Court Judge; and Jared T. Williams, District Attorney (Christopher F. Jones v. State of Georgia; Richmond County; Ashley Wright, Superior Court Judge; and Jared T. Williams, District Attorney) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Christopher F. Jones v. State of Georgia; Richmond County; Ashley Wright, Superior Court Judge; and Jared T. Williams, District Attorney, (S.D. Ga. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA AUGUSTA DIVISION CHRISTOPHER F. JONES, ) Plaintiff, V. CV 125-125 STATE OF GEORGIA; RICHMOND 3 COUNTY; ASHLEY WRIGHT, Superior ) Court Judge; and JARED T. WILLIAMS, ) District Attorney, ) Defendants.

ORDER

On September 4, 2025, the Magistrate Judge entered a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) recommending dismissal of Plaintiff's complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. (Doc. no. 12.) The Magistrate Judge simultaneously entered an order denying Plaintiffs motion for discovery. (Doc. no. 14.) Objections to the recommendation for dismissal were due no later than September 23, 2025. (Doc. no. 13.) Having received no objections to the R&R by the deadline, the Court adopted the R&R as its opinion on October 3, 2025. (Doc. no. 15.) On October 20, 2025, the Court received a filing titled “Motion for Reconsideration of the Order of the Above Style Case and to Reinstate the Matter in this Civil Action” from Plaintiff, dated October 15, 2025, which the Court liberally construes as a motion for an extension of time to file objections. (Doc. no. 17); see also Torres v. Miami-Dade Cnty., Fla., 734 F. App’x 688,

691 (11th Cir. 2018) (per curiam) (explaining a court “must sometimes look beyond the labels used in a pro se party’s [motion] and focus on the content and substance of the allegations”). In this motion, Plaintiff states he received the October 3rd Order adopting the R&R, but he never received the Magistrate Judge’s September 4th R&R. (Doc. no. 17.) Thus, he explains he never had an opportunity to object to the R&R. (See id.) Because Plaintiff received the Court’s October 3rd Order without issue, his failure to receive the September 4th R&R appears to be an anomaly. Accordingly, in an abundance of caution, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs motion and extends the deadline for objecting to the R&R. (Doc. no. 17.) Plaintiff shall have fourteen days from the date of this Order to file any objections to the R&R. However, because Plaintiff did not file any objections with his motion, the Court will not vacate its Order adopting the Report and Recommendation at this time. For the time being, that Order will remain the Order of the Court, and this case shall remain CLOSED. Should Plaintiff file timely objections, the Court will consider Plaintiff's objections on the merits and assess what effect, if any, those objections have on the Court’s October 3rd Order adopting the Report and Recommendation. Finally, the Court DIRECTS the CLERK to re-serve the September 4th R&R and accompanying Orders, (doc. nos. 12-14), on Plaintiff on his address listed on the docket. SO ORDERED this ey of November, 2025, at Augusta, Georgia.

(wlgeteete HONORABLE J-RANDAL HALL UNITED SVATES DISTRICT JUDGE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA AUGUSTA DIVISION CHRISTOPHER F. JONES, ) Plaintiff, V. CV 125-125 STATE OF GEORGIA; RICHMOND 3 COUNTY; ASHLEY WRIGHT, Superior ) Court Judge; and JARED T. WILLIAMS, ) District Attorney, ) Defendants.

ORDER

On September 4, 2025, the Magistrate Judge entered a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) recommending dismissal of Plaintiff's complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. (Doc. no. 12.) The Magistrate Judge simultaneously entered an order denying Plaintiffs motion for discovery. (Doc. no. 14.) Objections to the recommendation for dismissal were due no later than September 23, 2025. (Doc. no. 13.) Having received no objections to the R&R by the deadline, the Court adopted the R&R as its opinion on October 3, 2025. (Doc. no. 15.) On October 20, 2025, the Court received a filing titled “Motion for Reconsideration of the Order of the Above Style Case and to Reinstate the Matter in this Civil Action” from Plaintiff, dated October 15, 2025, which the Court liberally construes as a motion for an extension of time to file objections. (Doc. no. 17); see also Torres v. Miami-Dade Cnty., Fla., 734 F. App’x 688,

691 (11th Cir. 2018) (per curiam) (explaining a court “must sometimes look beyond the labels used in a pro se party’s [motion] and focus on the content and substance of the allegations”). In this motion, Plaintiff states he received the October 3rd Order adopting the R&R, but he never received the Magistrate Judge’s September 4th R&R. (Doc. no. 17.) Thus, he explains he never had an opportunity to object to the R&R. (See id.) Because Plaintiff received the Court’s October 3rd Order without issue, his failure to receive the September 4th R&R appears to be an anomaly. Accordingly, in an abundance of caution, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs motion and extends the deadline for objecting to the R&R. (Doc. no. 17.) Plaintiff shall have fourteen days from the date of this Order to file any objections to the R&R. However, because Plaintiff did not file any objections with his motion, the Court will not vacate its Order adopting the Report and Recommendation at this time. For the time being, that Order will remain the Order of the Court, and this case shall remain CLOSED. Should Plaintiff file timely objections, the Court will consider Plaintiff's objections on the merits and assess what effect, if any, those objections have on the Court’s October 3rd Order adopting the Report and Recommendation. Finally, the Court DIRECTS the CLERK to re-serve the September 4th R&R and accompanying Orders, (doc. nos. 12-14), on Plaintiff on his address listed on the docket. SO ORDERED this ey of November, 2025, at Augusta, Georgia.

(wlgeteete HONORABLE J-RANDAL HALL UNITED SVATES DISTRICT JUDGE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Christopher F. Jones v. State of Georgia; Richmond County; Ashley Wright, Superior Court Judge; and Jared T. Williams, District Attorney, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/christopher-f-jones-v-state-of-georgia-richmond-county-ashley-wright-gasd-2025.