SPAULDING v. TUCKER, et al

Filing 166

ORDER adopting 148 AMENDED REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION; granting 157 MOTION for an Extension and Notice of Change of Address; vacating 156 ORDER - ADOPTING 148 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION; granting 74 (First) MOTION TO DISMI SS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM; granting in part 78 (Second) MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM; granting in part 97 (Third) MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM; granting in part 118 (Fourth) MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILUR E TO STATE A CLAIM. Signed by SENIOR JUDGE MAURICE M PAUL on 5/7/2015. Plaintiffs claims raised against Defendants Jennings and Johnson are DISMISSED for failure to serve Defendants with process within 120 days as required by Rule 4(m). Plaintiff s claims against Defendant Tucker are DISMISSED for failure to state a claim and for failure to serve process. Plaintiffs claim against the Secretary of the Department of Corrections Michael Crews, hereby substituted as Julie Jones, is DISMISSED. This case is REMANDED to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings, with all remaining claims proceeding against Defendants in their individual capacities only, limited to nominal damages only with the exception of Plaintiffs claims against Defendants Gartman and Madan, upon which Plaintiff may request compensatory and punitive damages. (kdm)

Page 1 of 4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TALLAHASSEE DIVISION
JOHN C. SPAULDING,
Plaintiff,
v.

CASE NO. 4:11-cv-00605-MP-CAS

RONNIE WOODALL, et al.,
Defendants.
_____________________________/
ORDER
This matter is before the Court on doc. 157, a motion for extension and notice of change
of address, and doc. 158, a response or objection to the Court’s Report and Recommendation,
both by John C. Spaulding. By way of background, on February 12, 2015, the Magistrate Judge
entered a Report and Recommendation regarding numerous motions to dismiss that had been
filed by Defendants. (Doc. 146). The Magistrate Judge then entered an Amended Report and
Recommendation on February 17, 2015, to correct a typographical error. (Doc. 148). Plaintiff
then filed a motion for extension to respond to the Court’s Report and Recommendation (doc.
150), explaining that he was unable to review the document as he had recently been incarcerated
at the Union County Jail. On March 2, 2015, the Magistrate Judge granted the motion, extending
the deadline for the filing of objections to March 31, 2015. (Doc. 151). The Magistrate Judge
then entered an Order on March 13th detailing the recent history of issues with mail returns from
Plaintiff and directing the Clerk to mail another copy of the original Report and
Recommendation to Plaintiff’s current address. (Doc. 155). The Order also reminded Plaintiff
that the deadline for filing objections to the Amended Report and Recommendation, which had

Page 2 of 4

not been returned to the Court as undeliverable, remained March 31, 2015. Id.
Despite the extension and the Magistrate Judge’s reminder, Plaintiff filed no objections
on or before the March 31st deadline. On April 13, 2015, the undersigned entered an Order
adopting and incorporating the Amended Report and Recommendation. (Doc. 156). In
accordance with the Magistrate Judge’s recommendations, the Court dismissed a variety of
Plaintiff’s claims. The Court remanded the matter to the Magistrate Judge for further
proceedings, with all remaining claims proceeding against Defendants in their individual
capacities only, limited to nominal damages only, with the exception of Plaintiff’s claims against
Defendants Gartman and Madan, upon which Plaintiff may request compensatory and punitive
damages. Id.
Subsequently, Plaintiff filed the instant motion for extension of time (doc. 157) and
objection to the Amended Report and Recommendation (doc. 158). In his motion for extension,
Plaintiff indicates that he is currently incarcerated in the Miami Dade Corrections and
Rehabilitation Department. He states that he has not been able to receive any of the Court’s
recent Orders. He also requests a second extension of time, presumably to file objections to the
Amended Report and Recommendation. Id. In his concurrently filed objections to the Amended
Report and Recommendation (doc. 158), Plaintiff states that on April 8, 2015, he finally received
from his girlfriend the Court’s Report and Recommendation and other mail. He claims that he
“was totally unaware that his deadline to file [objections] was March 31, 2015.” Id. at 2.
In an abundance of caution, the Court finds that the motion for extension of time should
be granted nunc pro tunc and that Plaintiff’s objections to the Amended Report and
Recommendation should be considered. To facilitate this, the Court’s Order at doc. 156, which
adopted the Amended Report and Recommendation, is hereby vacated.
Case No: 4:11-cv-00605-MP-CAS

Page 3 of 4

The Court has now made a de novo review of the Amended Report and Recommendation
based on Plaintiff’s objections. Having so considered the Amended Report and
Recommendation, and Plaintiff’s objections thereto, the Court again finds that the Amended
Report and Recommendation should be adopted. Plaintiff’s objections are conclusory in nature
and/or simply restate the same arguments that were thoroughly considered and adequately
addressed by the Magistrate Judge. To the extent that Plaintiff seeks leave to file a fifth
amended complaint, such issue shall be addressed through Plaintiff’s recently filed motion at
doc. 162, and the Magistrate Judge’s recently issued Report and Recommendation thereon (doc.
163).
Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:
1.

Plaintiff’s motion for extension of time (doc. 157) is GRANTED to the extent that
the Court has reviewed and considered Plaintiff’s concurrently filed objections to
the Amended Report and Recommendation (doc. 158).

2.

The Court’s Order at doc. 156 is VACATED so that the Court may now consider
Plaintiff’s objections at doc. 158.

3.

The Magistrate Judge’s Amended Report and Recommendation (doc. 148) is
adopted and incorporated by reference in this order.

4.

Plaintiff’s claims raised against Defendants Jennings and Johnson are
DISMISSED for failure to serve Defendants with process within 120 days as
required by Rule 4(m).

5.

Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant Tucker are DISMISSED for failure to state a
claim and for failure to serve process.

6.

The first motion to dismiss by Defendants Adams, Neel, and Secretary Jones
(doc. 74) is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s claim against the Secretary of the Department
of Corrections Michael Crews, hereby substituted as Julie Jones, is DISMISSED
as Plaintiff’s requests for injunctive and declaratory relief are moot and
Defendant holds immunity under the Eleventh Amendment. Plaintiff’s claims
against Defendants Adams and Neel are DISMISSED for failure to state a claim

Case No: 4:11-cv-00605-MP-CAS

Page 4 of 4

upon which relief may be granted.
7.

The second motion to dismiss by Defendants Bass, Ford, Gartman, Goodwin,
Howard, and Landrum (doc. 78) is GRANTED IN PART. Plaintiff’s claims
against these Defendants in their official capacities, Plaintiff’s requests for
declaratory and injunctive relief against these Defendants, and Plaintiff’s requests
for monetary damages as to Defendants Bass, Ford, Goodwin, Howard, and
Landrum, are DISMISSED. Otherwise, the motion is DENIED.

8.

The third motion to dismiss by Defendants Lagos and Woodall (doc. 97) is
GRANTED IN PART. Plaintiff’s claims against these Defendants in their official
capacities, and Plaintiff’s requests for declaratory and injunctive relief and
monetary damages against these Defendants, are DISMISSED. Otherwise, the
motion is DENIED.

9.

The fourth motion to dismiss by Defendant Reynolds (doc. 118) is GRANTED IN
PART. Plaintiff’s claims against this Defendant in her official capacity and
Plaintiff’s requests for declaratory and injunctive relief and monetary damages
against this Defendant are DISMISSED. Otherwise, the motion is DENIED.

10.

This case is REMANDED to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings, with
all remaining claims proceeding against Defendants in their individual capacities
only, limited to nominal damages only with the exception of Plaintiff’s claims
against Defendants Gartman and Madan, upon which Plaintiff may request
compensatory and punitive damages.

DONE AND ORDERED this

7thday of May, 2015

s/Maurice M. Paul
Maurice M. Paul, Senior District Judge

Case No: 4:11-cv-00605-MP-CAS