Eddie J. Kelly v. Lt. Bennett, et al.

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHERN DIVISION EDDIE J. KELLY, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) CASE NO. 2:24-cv-00201-BL-SMD ) LT. BENNETT, et al., ) ) Defendants. )

ORDER

Plaintiff Eddie J. Kelly, an inmate proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed an Amended Complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. 17). On December 5, 2025, the Magistrate Judge recommended that the court dismiss as frivolous the Plaintiff’s case prior to service of process. (Doc. 22). The Plaintiff filed objections to the recommendation. (Doc. 23). A district court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). A district judge must “make a de novo determination of those portions of the [magistrate judge’s] report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3) (“The district judge must determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge's disposition that has been properly objective to.”). A district court’s obligation to “make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made” requires a district judge

to “give fresh consideration to those issues to which specific objection has been made by a party.” United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 673, 675 (1980) (internal quotations and citations omitted) (emphasis in Raddatz).

In his objections, the Plaintiff merely restates facts that the Magistrate Judge considered in his recommendation and fails to challenge a specific factual finding or legal conclusion of the Magistrate Judge. Because the Plaintiff failed to identify an error in the Magistrate Judge’s factual findings or legal conclusions, the court

OVERRULES the Plaintiff’s objections, (doc. 23). After careful review of the file and upon consideration of the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, the court ADOPTS the recommendation of the Magistrate

Judge and DISMISSES this action WITH PREJUDICE as frivolous prior to service of process.1 The Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that because the Plaintiff’s claims fail as a matter of law, any further amendment would be futile.

1 The Magistrate Judge’s recommendation is silent as to whether to dismiss the action with or without prejudice. Here, because any further amendment would be futile, the court dismisses the action with prejudice. See Daker v. Bryson, 841 F. App’x 115, 123 (11th Cir. 2020) (stating that the “general rule against dismissal with prejudice without notice does not apply if the claim is patently frivolous or if amendment would be futile”). The Court will enter a separate final judgment. DONE and ORDERED on this the 25th day of February, 2026. JO BILL LEWIS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE