Shepherd v. Wilson et al
ORDER entered that after due and proper consideration, the R&R is adopted as the opinion of this Court. Defendant Richard Stringer's motion to strike (Doc. 42) is DENIED. The Defendants' Motions to Dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Pro cedure 12(b)(6) (Docs. 7, 18, 26) are GRANTED as to Plaintiff Mickel Shepherd's federal claims in his Complaint (Doc.1). Shepherd's requests for leave to amend and to engage in discovery embedded in his response brief (Doc. 32 at 4-5) an d his separate motion for leave to amend (Doc. 47) are DENIED. The Court declines to continue exercising supplemental jurisdiction over Shepherd's state law, county law, and Cooperative rules and by-laws claims in his Complaint (Doc. 1) and DISMISSES those claims WITHOUT PREJUDICE.. Signed by Judge Kristi K. DuBose on 1/8/2016. (mcb)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
STAN WILSON, et al.,
CIVIL ACTION NO. 15-00373-KD-N
After due and proper consideration of the issues raised, the Report and Recommendation
(Doc. 48) of the Magistrate Judge dated December 21, 2015, and made under 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1)(B)-(C), Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b), and S.D. Ala. GenLR 72(a)(2)(S), is
ADOPTED as the opinion of this Court. 1
Accordingly, it is ORDERED as follows:
1. Defendant Richard Stringer’s motion to strike (Doc. 42) is DENIED;
2. The Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)
(Docs. 7, 18, 26) are GRANTED as to Plaintiff Mickel Shepherd’s federal claims in his
Complaint (Doc. 1);
Plaintiff filed a motion for extension of time to file objections, which the Court denied. (Docs. 49-50). The motion
stated, “However, in the alternative, a Blanket OBJECTION is filed this date with this Court. The Plaintiff’s case is
not Time Barred due to the fact the mistreatment by the Defendants existed up until the date this legal action was
filed. The Amended Complaint should not be Denied because there are many legal theories which support the
Plaintiff’s Complaint as Amended against all Defendants.” (Doc. 49 at 1 capitalizations and emphasis in original).
“Parties filing objections to a magistrate’s report and recommendation must specifically identify those findings
objected to. Frivolous, conclusive, or general objections need not be considered by the district court.” Marsden v.
Moore, 847 F.2d 1536, 1548 (11th Cir. 1988). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s “blanket objection” was not considered. See
also Green v. McNeil, 2010 WL 3833967, at *1 (S.D. Fla. Sept. 30, 2010)(“address[ing] the R & R as if no
objection was filed” when party filed a “blanket objection.”).
3. Shepherd’s requests for leave to amend and to engage in discovery embedded in his
response brief (Doc. 32 at 4-5) and his separate motion for leave to amend (Doc. 47) are
4. The Court declines to continue exercising supplemental jurisdiction over Shepherd’s state
law, county law, and Cooperative rules and by-laws claims in his Complaint (Doc. 1) and
DISMISSES those claims WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
Final judgment in accordance with this Order and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58
shall be entered by separate document.
DONE and ORDERED this 8th day of January 2016.
/s/ Kristi K. DuBose
KRISTI K. DuBOSE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?