David William Morris, Sr. v. Ms. Jones, et al.

S.D. Georgia

David William Morris, Sr. v. Ms. Jones, et al.

District Court, S.D. Georgia·Decided August 12, 2026·No. 6:25-cv-00022·Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA STATESBORO DIVISION

DAVID WILLIAM MORRIS, SR., Plaintiff, CIVIL ACTION NO.: 6:25-cv-22 v. MS. JONES, et al., Defendants.

ORDER The Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation that the Court dismiss portions of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint. Doc. 60. Plaintiff filed Objections to portions of this Report and Recommendation.' Doc. 62. To challenge the findings and recommendations of a magistrate judge, a party must file specific written objections. Macort v. Prem, Inc., 208 F. App’x 781, 783 (11th Cir. 2006). Ifthe party makes no specific objections, the standard of review for the report and recommendation is clear error. Id. at 784. To qualify as specific, an “objection must ‘identify the portions of the proposed findings and recommendation to which objection is made and the specific basis for objection.’” Kohser v. Protective Life Corp., 649 F. App’x 774, 777 (11th Cir. 2016) (quoting Heath v. Jones, 863 F.2d 815, 822 (11th Cir. 1989)). Plaintiff's Objections are not specific. Plaintiff fails to articulate a legal or factual basis for his Objections. He only states, without elaboration, that he “object[s] to dismissing [his] ADA

! Plaintiff does not object to the Magistrate Judge’s conclusion that Plaintiff fails to state claims against Defendant Oliver. The Court need not discuss this finding as a result.

and Rehabilitation Act claims.” Doc. 62 at 2. Thus, I review the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation under the clearly erroneous standard. After an independent review, I find no clear error in the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation. I OVERRULE Plaintiff's Objections and ADOPT the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation as the opinion of the Court. I DISMISS Plaintiff's claims against Defendant Oliver and Plaintiffs claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act. Plaintiffs claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Defendants Beasley, Cheney, Jones, and Cowens remain pending. SO ORDERED, this beh day of August, 2026.

J.RANDAEIHALL 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 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 STATESBORO DIVISION

DAVID WILLIAM MORRIS, SR., Plaintiff, CIVIL ACTION NO.: 6:25-cv-22 v. MS. JONES, et al., Defendants.

ORDER The Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation that the Court dismiss portions of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint. Doc. 60. Plaintiff filed Objections to portions of this Report and Recommendation.' Doc. 62. To challenge the findings and recommendations of a magistrate judge, a party must file specific written objections. Macort v. Prem, Inc., 208 F. App’x 781, 783 (11th Cir. 2006). Ifthe party makes no specific objections, the standard of review for the report and recommendation is clear error. Id. at 784. To qualify as specific, an “objection must ‘identify the portions of the proposed findings and recommendation to which objection is made and the specific basis for objection.’” Kohser v. Protective Life Corp., 649 F. App’x 774, 777 (11th Cir. 2016) (quoting Heath v. Jones, 863 F.2d 815, 822 (11th Cir. 1989)). Plaintiff's Objections are not specific. Plaintiff fails to articulate a legal or factual basis for his Objections. He only states, without elaboration, that he “object[s] to dismissing [his] ADA

! Plaintiff does not object to the Magistrate Judge’s conclusion that Plaintiff fails to state claims against Defendant Oliver. The Court need not discuss this finding as a result.

and Rehabilitation Act claims.” Doc. 62 at 2. Thus, I review the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation under the clearly erroneous standard. After an independent review, I find no clear error in the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation. I OVERRULE Plaintiff's Objections and ADOPT the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation as the opinion of the Court. I DISMISS Plaintiff's claims against Defendant Oliver and Plaintiffs claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act. Plaintiffs claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Defendants Beasley, Cheney, Jones, and Cowens remain pending. SO ORDERED, this beh day of August, 2026.

J.RANDAEIHALL 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

David William Morris, Sr. v. Ms. Jones, et al., (S.D. Ga. 2026).

Pincite

David William Morris, Sr. v. Ms. Jones, et al. (David William Morris, Sr. v. Ms. Jones, et al.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related