McCloud v. Central Alabama Health Care VA et al (MAG+)

Filing 62

ORDER: it is hereby ORDERED as follows: 1. The 60 Recommendation is ADOPTED; 2. The 52 Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED; and, 3. This case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Signed by Honorable Judge R. Austin Huffaker, Jr. on 1/6/2025. (BES)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
EASTERN DIVISION
CONTESSA CLARK MCCLOUD,
Plaintiff,
v.
CENTRAL ALABAMA HEALTH
CARE VA, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 3:23-cv-402-RAH

)

)
)
)
)
ORDER

On July 10, 2024, the Magistrate Judge recommended that this action be
dismissed because the Plaintiff’s operative complaint failed to comply with the basic
requirements of Rules 8 and 10 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in that the
complaint was a shotgun pleading. (Doc. 60.) On July 23, 2024, the Plaintiff filed
evidentiary submissions, which this Court construes as including Objections, (doc.
61.), to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, (doc. 60).
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
1

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. Opie, 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 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.
Here, Plaintiff’s Objections consist largely of prior court filings and
evidentiary records. The Objections fail to provide a legal basis as grounds for
objecting and fail to identify which parts of the Report and Recommendation
Plaintiff is objecting to. A pro se litigant must do more than merely raise an issue in
a perfunctory manner, without supporting arguments and citation to authorities, to
avoid dismissal. See N.L.R.B. v. McClain of Ga., Inc., 138 F.3d 1418, 1422 (11th
Cir. 1998); see also Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 834 n.46 (1975) (noting that
a pro se litigant must follow the court's procedure and its rules of evidence). We will
not scour the record or formulate arguments for a litigant appearing pro se, and all
issues that are not briefed are abandoned. Borden v. Cheaha Reg'l Mental Health
Ctr., Inc., 760 F. App’x 828, 830 (11th Cir. 2019); see Timson v. Sampson, 518 F.3d
870, 874 (11th Cir. 2008); see also T.P. ex rel. T.P. v. Bryan Cnty. Sch. Dist., 792
F.3d 1284, 1291 (11th Cir. 2015) (“[A]ppellate courts do not sit as self-directed
2

boards of legal inquiry and research[.]”). Consequently, this Court agrees with the
Magistrate Judge that this action should be dismissed.
Accordingly, upon an independent review of the record, it is hereby
ORDERED as follows:
1. The Recommendation (Doc. 60) is ADOPTED;
2. The Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 52) is GRANTED; and,
3. This case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
DONE, on this the 6th day of January 2024.

R. AUSTIN HUFFAKER, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3