Rabold v. Hayes

• Court: District Court, M.D. Florida
• Decided: April 11, 2025
• Docket: 6:24-cv-01580
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA ORLANDO DIVISION

JOSHUA-WAYNE RABOLD,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No: 6:24-cv-1580-PGB-RMN

AMANDA FAYE HAYES and JANICE HUNT,

Defendants. / ORDER This cause comes before the Court upon the following filings: 1. Magistrate Judge Robert M. Norway’s Order to Show Cause, filed March 17, 2025 (Doc. 60 (the “Order to Show Cause”)) and pro se Plaintiff Joshua-Wayne Rabold’s (“Plaintiff”) filing entitled Motion to Show Cause, which the Court construes as Plaintiff’s response to the Order to Show Cause (Doc. 66 (the “Response”));1 2. Magistrate Judge Norway’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 69 (the “Report”)); and 3. Plaintiff’s Objection to the Report (Doc. 73 (the “Objection”)).

1 “Pro se pleadings are held to a less stringent standard than pleadings drafted by attorneys and will, therefore, be liberally construed.” Tannenbaum v. United States, 148 F.3d 1262, 1263 (11th Cir. 1998). Defendants Amanda Faye Hayes and Janice Hunt (collectively, the “Defendants”) have not responded to the Objection and the time to do so has passed. Upon consideration, the Court overrules the Objection, adopts the Report,

and dismisses the case with prejudice. I. BACKGROUND The procedural and factual background as set forth in the Report are hereby adopted and made a part of this Order. (See Doc. 69, pp. 1–2). II. LEGAL STANDARD

When a party objects to a magistrate judge’s findings, the district court must “make a de novo determination of those portions of the report . . . to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The district court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” Id. The district court must consider the record and factual issues independent of the magistrate judge’s report, as de novo review is essential to the

constitutionality of § 636. Jeffrey S. v. State Bd. of Educ., 896 F.2d 507, 512–13 (11th Cir. 1990). However, when the parties object to the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations, “[f]rivolous, conclusive, or general objections need not be considered by the district court.” United States v. Schultz, 565 F.3d 1353, 1361 (11th Cir. 2009) (citation omitted).

III. DISCUSSION Simply put, the arguments contained within Plaintiff’s Objection are either “[f]rivolous, conclusive, or general” and consequently, the Court is not required to consider such objections.2 (See Doc. 73); see Schultz, 565 F.3d at 1361; see also Knezevich v. Ptomey, 761 F. App’x 904, 906 (11th Cir. 2019) (“[O]bjections to a magistrate judge’s recommendation and report must be ‘specific’ and ‘clear enough

to permit the district court to effectively review the magistrate judge’s ruling.’”).3 In any event, upon an independent de novo review of the record, the Court agrees with the analysis and conclusions set forth in the Report. (Doc. 69). IV. CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth herein, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as

follows: 1. Plaintiff’s Objection (Doc. 73) is OVERRULED; 2. Magistrate Judge Robert M. Norway’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 69), filed March 24, 2025, is ADOPTED and CONFIRMED and made a part of this Order; 3. Plaintiff’s Complaint (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE;

4. The remaining pending motions (Docs. 58, 65, 70, 79)4 are DENIED AS MOOT; and

2 Although pro se pleadings are liberally construed, courts are not required to “act as de facto counsel or rewrite an otherwise deficient pleading to sustain an action.” Bilal v. Geo Care, LLC, 981 F.3d 903, 911 (11th Cir. 2020).

3 “Unpublished cases do not constitute binding authority and may be relied on only to the extent they are persuasive.” Searcy v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 902 F.3d 1342, 1355 (11th Cir. 2018).

4 The Court notes that two of the cited Motions were filed after Magistrate Judge Norway issued his Report. (Docs. 70, 79). To the extent Magistrate Judge Norway’s Report recommended that the Court deny as moot any “pending motions,” the Court finds this recommendation is also applicable to the later-filed motions. (Doc. 69). 5. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to close the file. DONE AND ORDERED in Orlando, Florida on April 11, 2025.

c..- PAUL G. UNITED STATES*DISTRICT JUDGE

Copies furnished to: Counsel of Record Any Unrepresented Party