Randolph v. Gramiak et al

Filing 7

ORDER ADOPTING 4 Report and Recommendations of the Magistrate Judge as the opinion of the Court. The Court OVERRULES Randolph's Objections. The Court DISMISSES Plaintiff's Complaint and DIRECTS the Clerk to enter the appropriate judgment of dismissal and to CLOSE this case. The Court DENIES Plaintiff leave to appeal in forma pauperis. Signed by Chief Judge Lisa G. Wood on 3/7/2017. (ca)

tKntteb States!

Court

Jfor t|ie ^out][iem Sitetrict ot(f^eorsta
^apcrosssi l9tbtsiton

FILED
Scott L. Poff, Clerk
United States District Court

By casbell at 8:46 am, Mar 08, 2017

JOSHUA BRIAN RANDOLPH,

*
*

Plaintiff,

*

CIVIL ACTION NO.: 5:17-cv-l

*

V.

*
*

TOM GRAMIAK;EDWINA JOHNSON;and *
CHAPLAIN FLYNN,
*
*

Defendants.

*

ORDER

Presently before the Court is Plaintiff Joshua Brian

Randolph's (""Randolph") Objections to the Magistrate Judge's
Report and Recommendation dated January 5, 2017.

Dkt. No. 5.

Randolph objects to the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation that

this Court dismiss his claims for abuse of judicial process.
Id. at p. 1.

Plaintiff states that he erroneously reported on

his Section 1983 form Complaint that he had never filed any
lawsuits in state or federal court relating to the conditions of
his imprisonment because he misunderstood the question.
p. 2.

Id. at

Plaintiff further represents that he failed to answer the

question correctly because he did not fully read the page on

A0 72A

(Rev. 8/82)

which that question was located.

Id. at pp. 2-3.

As the Magistrate Judge explained in the Report and
Recommendation, ''Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(c) permits a
court to impose sanctions, including dismissal, for 'knowingly
fil[ing] a pleading that contains false contentions.'"

Dkt. No.

4, p. 4 (quoting Redmon v. Lake Cty. Sheriff's Office, 414 F.
App'x 221, 225-26 (11th Cir. 2011) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P.

11(c))).

The Magistrate Judge further explained that "[e]ven

where a prisoner has later provided an explanation for his lack
of candor, the Court has generally rejected the proffered reason
as unpersuasive."

Dkt. No. 4, p. 5 (citing Redmon, 414 F. App'x

at 226 ("The district court did not abuse its discretion in

concluding that Plaintiff's explanation for his failure to
disclose the Colorado lawsuit—that he misunderstood the form—did

not excuse the misrepresentation and that dismissal was a proper
sanction."))

Therefore, Randolph's explanation that he did not

understand or properly read the form is insufficient to overcome
his lack of candor.

Accordingly, the Court OVERRULES Randolph's Objections.
Dkt. No. 5.

After an independent and de novo review of the

entire record, the Court CONCURS with and ADOPTS the Magistrate
Judge's Report and Recommendation, dkt. no. 4, as the opinion of
the Court.

Consequently, the Court DISMISSES Plaintiff's

Complaint and DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to enter the

appropriate judgment of dismissal and to CLOSE this case.

The

Court DENIES Plaintiff leave to appeal in ^ rma pauperis.
SO ORDERED, this

k

LISA GODB^ WOOD, CHIEF JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTI^RN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

A0 72A

(Rev. 8/82)

, 2017.