Robinson v. Johnson

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA STATESBORO DIVISION

AARON JEWANN ROBINSON,

Plaintiff, CIVIL ACTION NO.: 6:19-cv-53

v.

JAVAKA JOHNSON; and CO HUGGINS,

Defendants.

O RDER The Court has conducted an independent and de novo review of the entire record and concurs with the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation. (Doc. 61.) Plaintiff filed Objections to this Report and Recommendation. (Doc. 64.) The Magistrate Judge recommended the Court grant Defendants’ Motion to Strike, (doc. 44), and direct the Clerk of Court to strike Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment, (doc. 40). The Magistrate Judge’s recommendation was based on his finding that Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment was untimely and Plaintiff did not make an affirmative showing of excusable neglect. (Doc. 61, pp. 3–4). The Magistrate Judge also concluded the Court should strike Plaintiff’s summary judgment motion because it failed to comply with the Court’s Local Rules requiring a statement of material facts. (Id. at p. 4.) Indeed, Plaintiff failed to explain the untimeliness or provide a statement of material facts in his response to Defendants’ Motion. (Doc. 59.) In his Objections, Plaintiff explains, for the first time, his Motion for Summary Judgment was late because he had been transferred several times around the time it was due and that delayed the delivery of his legal mail. (Doc. 61, p. 2.) However, objections to a report and recommendation are not a proper vehicle “through which to make new allegations or present additional evidence.” See Williams v. McNeil, 557 F.3d 1287, 1290-91 (11th Cir. 2009) (determining a district court does not abuse its discretion when it refuses to consider arguments not presented to the magistrate judge). Plaintiff had an opportunity to show excusable neglect in his response to Defendants’ motion to strike and failed to do so. Moreover, Plaintiff's explanation does not demonstrate excusable neglect. Plaintiff fails to show how any delay in receiving legal mail would cause him delay in submitting his own motion. Further, even if Plaintiff's now-offered explanation constituted excusable neglect, Plaintiff still has not addressed his failure to provide a separate statement of material facts. The Magistrate Judge correctly concluded Plaintiffs failure to comply with Local Rule 56.1 provides another, separate basis to strike his Motion for Summary Judgment, and the Court discerns no error in the Magistrate Judge’s analysis. (Doc. 61 at 4; see also Doc. 40.) Accordingly, the Court OVERRULES Plaintiff's Objections and ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation as the opinion of the Court. The Court GRANTS Defendant’s Motion to Strike, (doc. 44), and DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to STRIKE Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment, (doc. 40). SO ORDERED, this 12th day of July, 2021. f S ee Lye R.STANBAKER —‘isSSCS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA