Kelly v. Max Federal Credit Union (MAG+)

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHERN DIVISION

GREGORY KELLY and ) ANNETTE B. KELLY, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) CASE NO. 2:25-cv-00363-RAH v. ) ) MAX FEDERAL CREDIT ) UNION, et al., ) ) Defendants. ) ORDER On June 26, 2025, the Magistrate Judge recommended that Plaintiffs’ Complaint be dismissed as a nonsensical and frivolous improper shotgun pleading, that Plaintiffs not be afforded an opportunity to amend due to futility, and that all pending motions be denied as moot. (See doc. 15.) Plaintiffs have not filed an objection – at least one labeled as such – to the Recommendation, although they have sought recusal of the assigned Magistrate Judge (see doc. 16) as well as a stay of proceedings (see doc. 17). The Court nevertheless will treat the recusal and stay requests as objections to the Recommendation. When a party objects to a Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, the district court must review the disputed portions de novo. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The district court “may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or resubmit the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). De novo review requires that the district court independently consider factual issues based on the record. Jeffrey S. ex rel. Ernest S. v. State Bd. of Educ., 896 F.2d 507, 513 (11th Cir. 1990); see also United States v. Opie, 347 F. App’x 495, 499 n.1 (11th Cir. 2009). However, objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation must be sufficiently specific to warrant de novo review. See Macort v. Prem, Inc., 208 F. App’x 781, 783–85 (11th Cir. 2006). Otherwise, a Report and Recommendation is reviewed for clear error. Id. In Plaintiffs’ objections, they do not identify any specific parts or error with the Recommendation other than to recite their conclusory, vague, and conspiratorial allegations from the Complaint, which the Magistrate Judge characterized as nonsensical, frivolous, and pleaded in a shotgun fashion. Instead, they largely double down on the Complaint’s allegations. The Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s observations and findings about the Complaint. And as the Magistrate Judge noted, Plaintiffs are no strangers to the legal system or the Middle District of Alabama and the requirements to respond to orders of the Court and to plead their allegations in a proper format, as they have in 2024 alone, filed at least eight other lawsuits against approximately seventy-five other defendants, none of which have been deemed meritorious. See Kelly v. Montgomery Hous. Auth., No. 2:24-cv-166- MHT-JTA (10 defendants); Kelly v. Montgomery Real Est. Buyers, LLC, No. 2:24- cv-297-RAH-KFP (3 defendants); Kelly v. Ala. Dep’t of Rehab. Servs., No. 2:24-cv- 343-ECM-SMD (12 defendants); Kelly v. Montgomery Water Works & Sanitary Sewer Bd., No. 2:24-cv-348- RAH-JTA (12 defendants); Kelly v. Montgomery Cnty. & City Bd., No. 2:24-cv-362-ECM-KFP (10 defendants); Kelly v. Elite Roofing, LLC, No. 2:24-cv-388-MHT-JTA (4 defendants); Kelly v. Ala. Alcohol Control Bd., No. 2:24-cv-575-ECM-CWB (25 defendants); Kelly v. Montgomery Reg’l Airport, No. 2:24-cv-266- RAH-SMD (12 defendants). Accordingly, upon an independent and de novo review of the record, it is ORDERED as follows: 1. Plaintiffs’ Notice for Recusal And Request For Reassignment of Chief U.S. Magistrate Judge Stephen M. Doyle For The Public Good (doc. 16), to the extent it seeks recusal of the assigned Magistrate Judge, is DENIED; 2. All other requests for relief by the Plaintiffs, including their Rule 56 request for summary judgment (doc. 10), are DENIED; 3. Plaintiffs’ Notice for Recusal And Request For Reassignment of Chief U.S. Magistrate Judge Stephen M. Doyle For The Public Good (doc. 16), to the extent it constitutes an objection to the Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation (doc. 15), is OVERRULED; 4. Plaintiff's Motion to Stay Order (doc. 17), to the extent it constitutes an objection to the Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation (doc. 15), is OVERRULED; 5. Plaintiff's Motion to Stay Order (doc. 17), to the extent it requests a stay of proceedings, is DENIED; 6. The Recommendation (doc. 15) is ADOPTED; and, 7. This lawsuit is DISMISSED without prejudice. A separate Final Judgment will issue. DONE, on this the 18th day of July 2025.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE