Melton v. Town of Gordon (MAG+)

Opinion

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

ELBERT MELTON, JR., ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) CASE NO. 1:23-cv-639-RAH-CWB ) TOWN OF GORDON, ) ) Defendant. ) ORDER On September 27, 2024, the Magistrate Judge recommended that this action be dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a viable claim over which the Court has jurisdiction. (Doc. 18.) No timely objections were filed. But Plaintiff filed a Notice to the Court (doc. 19) on October 16, 2024, after the objection period ended. Due to the timing of the filing, the Court construes Plaintiff’s Notice to the Court as an objection. 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. Gopie, 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 in order 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. Jd.

Plaintiffs Notice to the Court contains no specific objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation; it only repeats Plaintiff's assertions against the Defendant. Upon an independent review of the file and upon consideration of the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED as follows: 1. The Recommendation (doc. 18) is ADOPTED; 2. To the extent that Plaintiff's Notice to the Court (doc. 19) is an objection, it is OVERRULED; and 3. This case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE due to the absence of a viable claim over which there is federal jurisdiction. DONE, on this the 17th day of October 2024.

R. AUSTIN Hl Ga JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE