Jerry Drake Varnell v. United States of America, et al.

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA PANAMA CITY DIVISION

JERRY DRAKE VARNELL,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 5:25-cv-362-TKW-MJF

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al.,

Defendants. / ORDER This case is before the Court based on the magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation (R&R) (Doc. 23) and Plaintiff’s “Motion in Response to Proposed Findings and Recommendations” (Doc. 25). The Court will treat Plaintiff’s motion as an objection to the R&R. The Court reviewed the issues raised in the objection de novo under 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3) and based on that review, the Court agrees with the magistrate judge’s determination that this case should be dismissed based on Plaintiff’s failure to truthfully disclose his litigation history. See McNair v. Johnson, 141 F.4th 1301, 1308 (11th Cir. 2025). The Court did not overlook Plaintiff’s argument that his failure to list the omitted case in response to Question VIII.C was an honest mistake because he did not think that term “lawsuit” encompassed a §2255 case. That argument has been rejected in prior cases, see Brown v. Foskey, 2024 WL 3497939, at *1 (N.D. Fla. July 22, 2024) (citing cases), and it is not persuasive here because Plaintiff does not

argue that he did not realize that a §2255 case is akin to a habeas petition and Question VII.C. specifically required Plaintiff to list “habeas corpus petition[s] ... challenging [his] conviction.” Accordingly, it is ORDERED that: 1. The magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation is adopted and incorporated by reference in this Order. 2. This case is DISMISSED without prejudice under the Court’s inherent authority based on Plaintiff's failure to truthfully disclose his litigation history. 3. The Clerk shall enter judgment in accordance with this Order and close the case file. DONE AND ORDERED this 15th day of June, 2026.

fe T.KENT WETHERELL, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Page 2 of 2