Stefan Stewart v. Ricky Dixon, et al.

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA PANAMA CITY DIVISION

STEFAN STEWART,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 5:26-cv-27-TKW-MJF

RICKY DIXON, et al.,

Defendants. / ORDER This case is before the Court based on the magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation (R&R) (Doc. 6) and Plaintiff’s objection (Doc. 7). The Court reviewed the issues raised in the objection de novo under 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3), and based on that review, the Court agrees with the magistrate judge’s determination that this case should be dismissed based on Plaintiff’s failure to fully disclose his litigation history as required. See McNair v. Johnson, 141 F.4th 1301, 1308 (11th Cir. 2025). The Court did not overlook Plaintiff’s argument that he was not required to list the omitted cases identified by the magistrate judge in the R&R because “they were appeals that challenged Plaintiff’s conviction in state court not federal court as Question C [on the complaint form] requires.” That argument is meritless because Question C specifically asks whether the plaintiff has filed “any other … appeal in state or federal court ... challenging your conviction ....” Doc. | at 14 (bold and italics in original; underlining added). Thus, the omitted cases should have been listed in response to Question C. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that: 1. The magistrate judge’s R&R is adopted and incorporated by reference in this Order. 2. This case is DISMISSED without prejudice under the Court’s inherent authority based on Plaintiff's failure to fully disclose his litigation history. 3. The Clerk shall enter judgment in accordance with this Order and close the case file. DONE AND ORDERED this 16th day of March, 2026.

7 [er ata ™

T.KENT WETHERELL, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Page 2 of 2