Billingsley v. Spiller Furniture (INMATE 1)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHERN DIVISION JERRY DONALD BILLINGSLEY, ) #303088, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) CIVIL ACT. NO. 2:22-cv-489-ECM ) (WO) SPILLER FURNITURE, ) ) Defendant. ) MEMORANDUM OPINION and ORDER On September 27, 2022, the Magistrate Judge entered a Recommendation that this case be dismissed for the Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the orders of the Court. (Doc.

5). The Plaintiff filed objections to the Recommendation. (Doc. 8). The Court has carefully reviewed the record in this case, the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, and the Plaintiff’s objections. For the reasons that follow, the Court concludes that the Plaintiff’s objections are due to be overruled, the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is due to be adopted, and this case is due to be dismissed for the Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the orders of the Court.

When a party objects to a Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, the district court must review the disputed portions de novo. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). See also United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 674 (1980). The district court “may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or resubmit the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). De novo review requires that the district court independently consider factual issues based on the record. Jeffrey S. by Ernest S. v. State Bd. of Educ. of State of Ga., 896 F.2d 507, 513 (11th Cir. 1990). “[A] party that wishes to preserve [his] objection must clearly advise the district court and pinpoint the specific findings that the party disagrees with.” United States v. Schultz, 565 F.3d 1353, 1360 (11th Cir. 2009) (alteration added). If the party does not object to specific factual findings, the court reviews the objections only for clear error. Garvey v. Vaughn, 993 F.2d 776, 779 n.9 (11th Cir. 1993).

The Court has reviewed the Plaintiff’s objections, which do not address his failure to comply with the orders of the Court. Due to the lack of specificity in the Plaintiff’s objections, the Court undertook a review of the objections under the clear error standard.

The Plaintiff does not point to any error committed by the Magistrate Judge, but instead offers a recitation of ill treatment not related to the claims raised in his complaint.

Moreover, to date, the Plaintiff has failed to comply with the orders of the Court.

Accordingly, upon an independent review of the file in this case and for good cause, it is ORDERED that the Plaintiff’s objections (doc. 8) are OVERRULED, the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (doc. 5) is ADOPTED, and this case is DISMISSED without prejudice for the Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the orders of the Court.

A final judgment will be entered.

DONE this 12th day of January, 2023.

/s/ Emily C. Marks EMILY C. MARKS CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE