Mathews v. Sutton (MAG+)

Filing 15

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: it is ORDERED that the 12 final judgment and 11 memorandum opinion are VACATED; it is ORDERED as follows that: 1.) the Plf's 13 & 14 objections are OVERRULED; 2.) the 10 Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is ADOPTED; and 3.) this case is DISMISSED without prejudice; A separate Final Judgment will be entered. Signed by Chief Judge Emily C. Marks on 1/4/2023. (bes, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
JOSEPH E. MATHEWS,
Plaintiff,
v.
RICK SUTTON, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CIV. ACT. NO. 1:19-cv-38-ECM
(WO)

MEMORANDUM OPINION and ORDER
On October 5, 2022, the Magistrate Judge entered a Recommendation that this
case be dismissed without prejudice. (Doc. 10). Objections to the Recommendation
were due no later than October 19, 2022. On October 21, 2022, the Court entered a
memorandum opinion and final judgment dismissing this case. (Docs. 11 and 12). On
October 27, 2022, and November 7, 2022, the Plaintiff submitted letters to the Court
which the Court construes as objections to the Recommendation. (Docs. 13 and 14).
Accordingly, in order to consider the Plaintiff’s objections, it is
ORDERED that the final judgment (doc. 12) and memorandum opinion (doc. 11)
entered on October 21, 2021 are VACATED.
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). However, objections to the Magistrate
Judge’s Report and Recommendation must be sufficiently specific in order to warrant
de novo review. See Stokes v. Singletary, 952 F.2d 1567, 1576 (11th Cir. 1992)
(“[w]henever any party files a timely and specific objection to a finding of fact by a
magistrate, the district court has an obligation to conduct a de novo review of the record
with respect to that factual issue.”) (quoting LoConte v. Dugger, 847 F.2d 745, 750
(11th Cir. 1988)). Otherwise, a Report and Recommendation is reviewed for clear error.
The Court has reviewed the Plaintiff’s objections wherein he reiterates the claims
presented in the amended complaint. Due to the lack of specificity in the Plaintiff’s
objections, the Court undertook a review of the Plaintiff’s Objections under the clear
error standard. The Plaintiff does not point to any error committed by the Magistrate
Judge, but instead re-offers a recitation of the claims made in his amended complaint.
The Court finds that the well-reasoned Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge
effectively addresses the Plaintiff’s claims. Accordingly, upon an independent review
of the file in this case and for good cause, it is
ORDERED as follows that:
1.

the Plaintiff’s objections (docs. 13 and 14) are OVERRULED;

2.

the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (doc. 10) is ADOPTED; and

3.

this case is DISMISSED without prejudice.

2

A separate Final Judgment will be entered.
Done this 4th day of January, 2023.
/s/ Emily C. Marks
EMILY C. MARKS
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3