KING v. AIKENS

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA MACON DIVISION EDDIE JAMES KING, Plaintiff, CIVIL ACTION NO. v. 5:21-cv-00215-TES-TQL Doctor AIKENS, et al., Defendants.

ORDER ADOPTING THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S RECOMMENDATION

Before the Court is the United States Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation [Doc. 119] regarding Plaintiff’s Eddie James King’s motions for judgment [Doc. 72]; [Doc. 95]; [Doc. 96], Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration [Doc. 109], and Defendants’ motions to dismiss [Doc. 77]; [Doc. 88]. Plaintiff filed an Objection [Doc. 121] in response to the Recommendation, with the magistrate judge’s Order and Recommendation attached. [Doc. 121]; [Doc. 121-2]. On the copy of the Order and Recommendation issued by the Court, Plaintiff wrote comments and objections to the magistrate judge’s findings. [Doc. 121-2]. The Court CONSTRUES the portion of Plaintiff’s “Motion of Objection to the Recommendations” [Doc. 121] that includes his comments written on the magistrate judge’s Order and Recommendation itself as objections to the Recommendation. [Doc. 121-2]. See Hughes v. Lott, 350 F.3d 1157, 1160 (11th Cir. 2003) (Pro se pleadings, like the one in this case, are “‘held to a less stringent standard than pleadings drafted by attorneys and will, therefore, be liberally construed.’”). Therefore, the Court undertakes

a de novo review of the portions of the Recommendation to which Plaintiff objected. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The Court reviews all other portions of the Recommendation for clear error. Id. at § 636(b)(1)(A).

Upon review, each of Plaintiff’s objections are either without merit or do not oppose any specific portion of the magistrate judge’s Recommendation. Instead, Plaintiff simply restates and rehashes the same arguments he has made in previous

filings, and even admits himself that he is “repeating his merit[s] of the case.” [Doc. 121, p. 1]; see also United States v. Schultz, 565 F.3d 1353, 1361 (11th Cir. 2009) (per curiam) (quoting Marsden v. Moore, 847 F.2d 1536, 1548 (11th Cir. 1988)) (when a party’s objections are “[f]rivolous, conclusive, or general,” the district court need not consider

them). Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the United States Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation [Doc. 119] and MAKES IT THE ORDER OF THE COURT. 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1)(C). Plaintiff’s motions for judgment [Doc. 72]; [Doc. 95]; [Doc. 96] are DENIED, Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration [Doc. 109] is DENIED, and Defendants’ motions to dismiss [Doc. 77]; [Doc. 88] are GRANTED.1

1 As a result of this Court adopting the United States Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation, Plaintiff’s Motion to Rule in Plaintiff’s Favor [Doc. 120] and Motion for Relief Under 41 U.S.C. § 1983 [Doc. 122] are both DENIED as moot. Finally, Plaintiff’s “Notice of Appeal to 11th CIR” [Doc. 121-1] is DISMISSED AS MOOT. The Court does not construe Plaintiff’s motion as a notice of appeal because

at the time of its filing, there had been no order entered by this Court to appeal. Plaintiff should be aware, however, that this does not preclude him from filing a notice of appeal incident to this current Order. See Smalls v. St. Lawrence, No. CV412-58, 2012 WL

1119761, at *1 (S.D. Ga. Apr. 3, 2012). SO ORDERED, this 26th day of August, 2022. S/ Tilman E. Self, III TILMAN E. SELF, III, JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT