Adams v. County Commissioner for Calhoun County et al

Filing 140

ORDER denying as moot 33 Motion For Default Judgment; granting 36 Motion to Dismiss Complaint; denying as moot 45 Motion for Default Judgment; denying as moot 51 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; denying as moot 84 Motion for Prelim inary Injunction; adopting Report and Recommendations re 115 Report and Recommendations.; denying as moot 117 Motion to Appoint Counsel ; denying as moot 118 Motion for Declaratory Judgment; denying as moot 119 Motion to Strike ; denying a s moot 120 Motion for More Definite Statement; denying as moot 121 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; denying as moot 122 Motion for Sanctions; denying as moot 127 Motion for More Definite Statement; denying as moot 129 Motion for Protective Order; denying as moot 131 Motion For Response; denying as moot 133 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. Ordered by Judge W. Louis Sands on 3/6/13 (wks)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ALBANY DIVISION
ALLEN ALPHONSO ADAMS,

:
:
Plaintiff,
:
:
v.
:
:
COUNTY COMMISSIONER FOR
:
CALHOUN COUNTY, et al.,
:
:
Defendants.
:
____________________________________:

CASE NO.: 1:11-CV-155 (WLS)

ORDER
Before the Court is a Recommendation from United States Magistrate Judge Thomas Q.
Langstaff (Doc. 115).

The Recommendation, filed October 31, 2012, recommends granting

Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 36) and denying as moot Plaintiff’s Motions for Default
Judgment, Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, and Motion for Injunctive Relief (Docs. 33,
45, 51, 84).
The Recommendation provided the Parties with fourteen (14) days from the date of its
service to file written objections to the recommendations therein. (Doc. 115 at 8.) The period
for objections expired on Monday, November 19, 2012. (See Docket). Plaintiff’s Objection to
the Recommendation, filed as a Motion to Strike (Doc. 119) and a Motion for Objection (Doc.
123), were not filed until November 20, 2012, with no explanation provided for the delay. As
such, it was not timely filed and will not be considered.1
1

Plaintiff’s Objection, even if it was timely, is not persuasive. Plaintiff completely fails to address the Magistrate
Judge’s finding that Plaintiff abused the judicial process when he submitted false testimony in answering “No” on
his complaint and failing to disclose his previously filed lawsuits. No explanation or denial is provided. Instead, as
best the Court can tell, Plaintiff argues that Court cannot dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint because no party objected to
the Court’s November 16, 2011 Order granting Plaintiff’s IFP Motion. (Doc. 119 at 1; Doc. 123 at 1.) There is no
merit to this claim; the IFP Order has no bearing on the Court’s ability to dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint for abuse of
the judicial process. Plaintiff also seems to believe that the Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation unilaterally

1

Upon review and consideration, the objections set forth in Plaintiff’s Objection (Docs.
119, 123) are OVERRULED, and United States Magistrate Judge Langstaff’s October 31, 2012
Recommendation (Doc. 115), is ACCEPTED, ADOPTED and made the Order of this Court for
reason of the findings made and reasons stated therein together with the reasons stated and
conclusions reached herein.

Accordingly Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 36) is

GRANTED and Plaintiff’s Complaint (Doc. 7) is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). Plaintiff’s Motions for Default Judgment, Motion for
Judgment on the Pleadings, and Motion for Injunctive Relief (Docs. 33, 45, 51, 84) are DENIED
AS MOOT. All of Plaintiff’s remaining Motions on the Docket (Docs. 31, 40, 42, 48, 49, 50,
52, 53, 54, 57, 62, 63, 64, 66, 73, 85, 86, 87, 88, 113, 114, 117, 118, 120, 121, 122, 127, 129,
131, 133) are DENIED AS MOOT.
SO ORDERED, this 6th

day of March, 2013.

/s/ W. Louis Sands
THE HONORABLE W. LOUIS SANDS,
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

dismissed Plaintiff’s complaint without offering Plaintiff the opportunity to object, despite the statement in the
Recommendation providing the parties fourteen days to submit objections. (Doc. 123 at 1.) Finally, Plaintiff
contends that his complaint cannot be dismissed while his interlocutory appeal is outstanding. Without addressing
the merits of Plaintiff’s objection, the Court notes that Plaintiff’s appeal has been denied (Doc. 138); as such,
Plaintiff’s objection on this ground is moot. To the extent that Plaintiff’s Objections (Docs. 119, 123) fail to address
recommendations made in Judge Langstaff’s Recommendation (Doc. 29), the Court finds that any objections not
made thereto are WAIVED. Accordingly, this Court finds that Petitioner’s Objection (Docs. 119, 123) fails to rebut
the legally sound recommendation of Judge Langstaff.

2