Johnson v. EPA

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JACKSONVILLE DIVISION CLARENCE D. JOHNSON,

Plaintiff, Vv. Case No. 3:22-cv-360-BJD-PDB JOE BIDEN, KAMALA HARRIS, FBI, CHICAGO POLICE DEPARTMENT, LANCE WATSON, EPA CANADA, and ROBERT MUELLER, Defendants.

: ORDER

THIS CAUSE is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 2; Report), entered by the Honorable Patricia D. Barksdale, United States Magistrate Judge, on April 5, 2022. In the Report, the Magistrate Judge recommends construing the two-page document captioned with “UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF Atlanta” as

a complaint and dismissing the action without prejudice. Report at 1.1 No

1 Plai:itiff makes a similar filing in another matter before this Court. See Johnson v. EPA et al., Case No: 3:22-cv-510-BJD-MCR (M.D. Fla filed on May 9, 2022). The same issues concerning subject matter jurisdiction present in_the instant case appear in the later filed case. Accordingly, this Court, sua sponte, reviews the document filed in the aforementioned case as a complaint to inquire for subject matter jurisdiction. See Kirkland v. Midland Mortgage Co., 243 F.3d 1277, 1279-1280 (11th Cir. 2001); see also Univ. of S. Ala. v. Am. Tobacco Co., 168 F.3d 405, 410 (11th Cir. 1999) (“[I]t is well settled that a federal court is obligated to inquire into subject matter jurisdiction sua sponte whenever it may be lacking.”).

party filed an objection to the Report and the time to do so has passed. Accordingly, the matter is ripe for review. -

The 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). If no specific objections to finding of fact are filed, the district judge is not required to conduct a de novo review of those findings. See Garvey v. □ Vaughn, 993 F.2d 776, 779 n.9 (11th Cir. 1993); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Further, if no objéctions to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation

are filed, the district court reviews legal conclusions only for plain error and only if necessary in the interest of justice. Shepherd v. Wilson, 663 F. App’x 816 (11th Cir. 2016); see also Mitchell v. United States, 612 F. App’x 542, 545 (11th Cir. 2015) (noting under 11th Circuit Rule 3-1, the appellant would have waived his ability to object to the district court’s final order on a report and recommendation where appellant failed to object to that report and recommendation). “Under plain error review, we can correct an error only when (1) an

error has occurred, (2) the error was plain, (8) the error affected substantial rights, and (4) the error seriously affects the fairness, integrity or public □

reputation of judicial proceedings.” Symonette v. V. A. Leasing Corp., 648 F. App’x 787, 790 (11th Cir. 2016) (citing Farley v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co.,

197 F.3d 1322, 1329 (11th Cir. 1999)). Upon independent review of the

_9.

document, (Doc. 1), construed as a complaint, this Court finds it lacks subject matter jurisdiction. Similarly, this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction

over the second case initiated by Plaintiff in Johnson v. EPA et al., Case No: ©

3:22-cv-510-BJD-MCR. Accordingly, after due consideration, it is ORDERED: 1. The Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 2) is ADOPTED as the opinion of this Court. 2. This case is DISMISSED without prejudice. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to close this file and terminate any remaining motions and deadlines.

_ 8. The Clerk is further DIRECTED to file a copy of this Court’s Order

and the adopted Report and Recommendation in Johnson v. EPA et_ all, Case No: 3:22-cv-510-BJD-MCR.

a. The case in Johnson v. EPA et al., Case No: 3:22-cv-510- BJD-MCR is DISMISSED without prejudice. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to close the file and terminate any remaining motions and deadlines.

a.

th DONE and ORDERED in Jacksonville, Florida this 1© day of May,

BRIAN J. DAVIS United States District Judge

8 Copies furnished to: Counsel of Record Unrepresented Parties

4.