Knuckles v. Department of the Army
ORDER ADOPTING 80 Report and Recommendations, DENYING AS MOOT 79 Motion for Miscellaneous Relief filed by Department of the Army, OVERRULING Plaintiff's Objection, DISMISSING with prejudice this case as a sanction and CLOSING this civil action. Signed by Judge J. Randal Hall on 03/13/2017. (maa)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
JENIQUA IRENE KNUCKLES,
DEPARTMENT OF ARMY,
After a careful, de novo review of the file, the Court concurs with the Magistrate
Judge's Report and Recommendation ("R&R"), to which objections have been filed. (CV
115-077, doc no. 82; CV 116-164, doc. no. 27.)
Plaintiff does not offer any new
information, evidence, or argument that warrants a deviation from the Magistrate Judge's
However, the Court will briefly comment concerning several glaring
falsehoods in Plaintiffs objections.
In her objections, Plaintiff claims "[t]here was no representation by the Plaintiff that
she was speeding or the delay was somehow related to the Plaintiff leaving home late." (CV
115-077, doc no. 82, p. 2; CV 116-164, doc. no. 27, p. 2.) However, contrary to her
contention, Plaintiff previously stated in court she was late because she "was pulled over for
speeding and detained . . . ." (Court's recording system, For The Record, (hereinafter
"FTR"), 9:47:52 - 9:47:57.) When asked why she was speeding, Plaintiff responded,
"Trying to get here on time, Your Honor .... I had to wait for a ride." (FTR 9:47:52 9:48:12.) The Court clarified Plaintiffs answer by asking, "that car was late picking you up,
and so you were speeding to get here, is that correct," and Plaintiff responded, "Yes, Your
Honor." (FTR 9:48:11-9:48:17.)
Plaintiff further claims the Magistrate Judge falsely represented that Plaintiff was a
passenger in a car when in reality "Plaintiff was the driver and the Plaintiff was traveling
alone." However, Plaintiffs statements to the Court regarding waiting for a ride and being
picked up led the Magistrate to reasonably conclude Plaintiff was a passenger and not the
(See FTR 9:47:52 - 9:48:12, 9:48:11 - 9:48:17.) At best, the Magistrate Judge
misinterpreted Plaintiffs statements; at worst, Plaintiff misrepresented to the Court her
transportation situation. Finally, although Plaintiff did apologize, her apology came only at
the Court's prompting and showed no real remorse. (FTR 9:57:22-9:57:51.)
Plaintiffs material misrepresentations in her objections as to why she was late to
court provide an additional ground for dismissal of these cases with prejudice. See Vargas v.
Peltz, 901 F. Supp. 1572, 1579 (S.D. Fla. 1995) ("Plaintiffs intentional misconduct in
presenting false evidence in support of her claims compels dismissal of this case.").
Accordingly, the Court OVERRULES Plaintiffs objections, ADOPTS the Report and
Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge as its opinion, DENIES AS MOOT Defendant's
oral motion to enforce settlement agreement (CV 115-077, doc no. 79; CV 116-164, doc. no.
22), DISMISSES WITH PREJUDICE these cases as a sanction, and CLOSES these civil
SO ORDERED this
/3 day ofMarch, 2017, at Augusta, Georgia.
HONORABLE J. RANDAL HALL
^UNITED SJATES DISTRICT JUDGE
DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
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?