Smith v. Ivey (MAG+)

Opinion

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

PETER J. SMITH, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) CASE NO. 2:24-cv-172-ECM ) KAY IVEY, ) ) Defendant. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION and ORDER

On May 15, 2025, the Magistrate Judge entered a Recommendation that this case be dismissed without prejudice for the Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute and failure to pay the filing fee or file a motion to proceed in forma pauperis in accordance with the Court’s Order. (Doc. 7). The Plaintiff timely filed objections to the Recommendation. (Doc. 8).1 After carefully reviewing the record in this case, the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, and the Plaintiff’s objections, the Court concludes that the Plaintiff’s objections are due to be overruled, the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is due to be adopted, and this case is due to be dismissed without prejudice. 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); see also United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 674 (1980). The district court “may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or resubmit the matter

1 Pursuant to the Court’s June 6, 2025 Order, the Plaintiff’s objections were deemed timely filed. (Doc. 9). to the magistrate judge with instructions.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). De novo review requires that the district court independently consider factual issues based on the record. Jeffrey S.

by Ernest S. v. State Bd. of Educ. of State of Ga., 896 F.2d 507, 513 (11th Cir. 1990). However, objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation must be sufficiently specific in order to warrant de novo review. See LoConte v. Dugger, 847 F.2d 745, 750 (11th Cir. 1988) (“Whenever any party files a timely and specific objection to a finding of fact by a magistrate [judge], the district court has an obligation to conduct a de novo review of the record with respect to that factual issue.”). Otherwise, a Report and

Recommendation is reviewed for clear error. The Plaintiff’s objections are general, conclusory, and irrelevant to the findings and conclusions in the Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation. He states, for example, that he has alleged his civil rights have been violated and that these allegations can only be handled in federal court. These statements fail to demonstrate that the Magistrate Judge committed

any error in finding that he has failed to prosecute this action and comply with Court Orders, or that dismissal without prejudice is appropriate. Consequently, the Court finds that the Plaintiff’s objections are due to be overruled. Accordingly, upon an independent review of the record, and for good cause, it is ORDERED as follows:

1. The Plaintiff’s objections (doc. 8) are OVERRULED; 2. The Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (doc. 7) is ADOPTED; 3. This case is DISMISSED without prejudice; 4. All pending motions are DENIED as moot, and all pending deadlines are TERMINATED.

A separate Final Judgment will be entered. DONE this 26th day of June, 2025. /s/ Emily C. Marks EMILY C. MARKS CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE