Mulder v. Girling et al (MAG +)

Filing 20

ORDER: it is ORDERED as follows: The Objection (Doc. 16 ) is OVERRULED; The Recommendation (Doc. 12 ) is ADOPTED. This is action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Plaintiff's Motion to Be Considered for the PSAP Program (Doc. 17 ) is DENIED as moot. Signed by Honorable Judge R. Austin Huffaker, Jr. on 7/8/2024. (c/s) (LAB)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHERN DIVISION JULIUS LITTLETON MULDER, Plaintiff, v. DR. GIRLING, et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CASE NO. 2:23-cv-606-RAH ORDER On April 3, 2024, the Magistrate Judge recommended this case be dismissed without prejudice due to the Plaintiff’s failure to file an amended complaint after being ordered to do so. (Doc. 12.) On May 13, 2024, Plaintiff Julius Mulder filed an objection wherein he states that he cannot understand the Recommendation and asks for time to “find Representation.” (Doc. 16.) 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). See also United States v. Gopie, 347 F. App'x 495, 499 n.1 (11th Cir. 2009). However, objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation must be sufficiently specific in order to warrant de novo review. See Macort v. Prem, Inc., 208 F. App'x 781, 783– 85 (11th Cir. 2006). Otherwise, a Report and Recommendation is reviewed for clear error. Id. This Court has reviewed the record, including the Recommendation and the Plaintiff’s Objection. On January 8, 2024, the Magistrate Judge ordered, among other things, that Plaintiff file an amended complaint that identified the individuals responsible for each of the constitutional violations alleged, the violations for which each person was responsible, and the dates of the violations. (Doc 7.) Plaintiff did not file an amended complaint, although given months to do so. Upon an independent review of the record, it is ORDERED as follows: 1. The Objection (Doc. 16) is OVERRULED; 2. The Recommendation (Doc. 12) is ADOPTED. 3. This is action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 4. Plaintiff’s Motion to Be Considered for the PSAP Program (Doc. 17) is DENIED as moot. A separate final judgment will follow. DONE, on this the 8th day of July 2024. R. AUSTIN HUFFAKER, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?