Jackman v. 20th Judicial Circuit Court Administration

Filing 116

ORDERED: The Report and Recommendation (Doc. 114) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED and incorporated into this Order. This action is DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to comply with Court Orders and failure to prosecute. The Clerk is DIRECTED to enter judgment, deny any pending motions as moot, terminate all deadlines, and close the case. Signed by Judge Sheri Polster Chappell on 9/8/2021. (AEH)

Case 2:19-cv-00828-SPC-MRM Document 116 Filed 09/08/21 Page 1 of 3 PageID 1287

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT MYERS DIVISION
KEIRON KEITH JACKMAN,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No: 2:19-cv-828-SPC-MRM

20TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
COURT ADMINISTRATION,
SCOTT A WILSKER, SUZANNE
EDERR and NICHOEL
FORRETT,
Defendants.

/
ORDER 1

Before the Court is United States Magistrate Judge Mac R. McCoy’s
Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) (Doc. 114). Judge McCoy recommends
dismissing this action without prejudice because Plaintiff failed to comply with
Court Orders or prosecute his claims. Neither party timely objected, so the
matter is ripe for review. 2

Disclaimer: Documents hyperlinked to CM/ECF are subject to PACER fees. By using
hyperlinks, the Court does not endorse, recommend, approve, or guarantee any third parties
or the services or products they provide, nor does it have any agreements with them. The
Court is also not responsible for a hyperlink’s availability and functionality, and a failed
hyperlink does not affect this Order.
1

Because the Court served the R&R on Plaintiff by mail, he had three extra days to object
(i.e., seventeen days). Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(d); Jackson v. Sec’y of Fla. Dep’t of Corr., 791 F. App’x
1, 2 & n.1 (11th Cir. 2019); Riley v. HSBC Bank PLC, No. 8:18-cv-1212-T-23SPF, 2018 WL
5084725, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Oct. 3, 2018). Still, Plaintiff failed to object in time.
2

Case 2:19-cv-00828-SPC-MRM Document 116 Filed 09/08/21 Page 2 of 3 PageID 1288

After conducting a careful and complete review of the findings and
recommendations, a district judge may accept, reject, or modify the magistrate
judge’s R&R. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also Williams v. Wainwright, 681
F.2d 732 (11th Cir. 1982). In the absence of specific objections, there is no
requirement that a district judge review factual findings de novo, Garvey v.
Vaughn, 993 F.2d 776, 779 n.9 (11th Cir. 1993), and the court may accept,
reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings and recommendations, 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The district judge reviews legal conclusions de novo,
even in the absence of an objection. See Cooper-Houston v. Southern Ry. Co.,
37 F.3d 603, 604 (11th Cir. 1994).
After careful consideration and an independent review of the file, the
Court accepts and adopts the well-reasoned R&R in full. Judge McCoy did
yeoman’s work to keep the case on track. And he afforded Plaintiff every
opportunity to litigate this action.

These endeavors included multiple

extensions of time (even in the face of Plaintiff’s complete silence).

Yet

Plaintiff’s willful delay by failing to comply or prosecute eviscerated any effort
to move the case forward—despite ample warnings over the result. So the
Court concludes Judge McCoy got it right: dismissal without prejudice is
appropriate because lesser sanctions would not suffice given this clear pattern
of willful noncompliance.

2

Case 2:19-cv-00828-SPC-MRM Document 116 Filed 09/08/21 Page 3 of 3 PageID 1289

Tellingly, Plaintiff never objected to those factual findings. This not only
buttresses the R&R’s findings; it also likely waives most (if not all) of Plaintiff’s
right to appeal them. E.g., Harrigan v. Metro Dade Police Dep’t Station #4,
977 F.3d 1185, 1191 (11th Cir. 2020). The R&R specifically warned Plaintiff
of that too. (Doc. 114 at 9-10). Notably, as the R&R stated, Plaintiff is not a
typical pro se litigant—he is a licensed attorney. (Docs. 115-15 at 7-8, 43; 1156 at 1). This only supports the conclusion Plaintiff’s serial noncompliance
militates in favor of dismissal.
Accordingly, it is now
ORDERED:
1. The Report and Recommendation (Doc. 114) is ACCEPTED and
ADOPTED and incorporated into this Order.
2. This action is DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to comply
with Court Orders and failure to prosecute.
3. The Clerk is DIRECTED to enter judgment, deny any pending
motions as moot, terminate all deadlines, and close the case.
DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida on September 8, 2021.

Copies: All Parties of Record

3