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)

Download PDF
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.

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?