JOHNSON v. WHEELER ET AL
Filing
21
ORDER ON 19 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: ACCEPTING R&R - Plaintiff's 1 complaint is DISMISSED for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C.§1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Signed by SENIOR JUDGE MAURICE M PAUL on 10/19/2011. (jws)
Page 1 of 3
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TALLAHASSEE DIVISION
CHARLES JOHNSON,
Plaintiff,
v.
CASE NO. 4:10-cv-00537-MP-WCS
THOMAS D HALL, JON S WHEELER,
Defendants.
_____________________________/
ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Doc. 19, Report and Recommendation of the
Magistrate Judge, which recommends that Plaintiff’s case be dismissed for failure to comply
with the Magistrate Judge’s order to file an amended complaint and for failure to state a claim
upon which relief may be granted. Following its entry, Plaintiff timely objected to the
Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation. Doc. 20. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1)(C), this Court reviews objected-to portions of the Report and Recommendation de
novo.
On November 15, 2010, Plaintiff filed a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983
against the clerk of the Florida First District Court of Appeal and the clerk of the Florida
Supreme Court in their official capacities. Doc. 1. Plaintiff filed this action in the District Court
for the Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division. Doc. 1. Because the defendants are located
Page 2 of 3
in Tallahassee, Florida, and because the cause of action arises from acts allegedly committed in
that location, Plaintiff should have filed this case in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Florida. Accordingly, on December 3, 2010, United States District Judge
Richard A. Lazzara transferred the complaint to the Tallahassee Division of the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Florida. Doc. 2.
On May 4, 2011, because (1 )Plaintiff failed to plead the factual allegations in separately
numbered paragraphs as Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 10(b) requires; (2 ) because Plaintiff
muddied the complaint by scattering unnecessary facts, his personal opinions of the role of
judges, a discussion of his understanding of judicial procedure, and irrelevant matters of Florida
law; and (3) because he failed to indicate which defendant clerk took or did not take the action
that supports the basis of his claim, the Magistrate Judge ordered Plaintiff to file an amended
complaint. Doc. 17. The deadline for filing the amended complaint was June 3, 2011. Doc. 17.
Plaintiff failed to file a timely amended complaint. Accordingly, on June 17, 2011, the
Magistrate Judge recommended that this Court dismiss Plaintiff’s case as a frivolous or
malicious complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 195(e)(2)(B)(ii).
Less than two weeks following the entry of the Magistrate Judge’s Report and
Recommendation, Plaintiff filed a seven-page objection. Doc. 20. Despite its length, the
objection is devoid of one coherent argument, let alone a persuasive line of reasoning. In fact,
Plaintiff continued in the same mode that the Magistrate Judge ordered that he abandon.
Plaintiff again failed to present his case in a coherent fashion. He again included large block
quotations of Florida law that are irrelevant to this matter. His language was overly aggressive
and malicious, often bordering on threatening. Most importantly, though, Plaintiff failed to
abide by the Magistrate Judge’s order, and he failed to present any evidence that would excuse
Case No: 4:10-cv-00537-MP-WCS
Page 3 of 3
his nonfeasance. Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:
1.
The Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, Doc. 19, is
ACCEPTED and incorporated herein.
2.
Plaintiff’s complaint Doc. 1, is DISMISSED, for failure to state a claim on which
relief may be granted, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).
DONE AND ORDERED this
19th day of October, 2011
s/Maurice M. Paul
Maurice M. Paul, Senior District Judge
Case No: 4:10-cv-00537-MP-WCS
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?