IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHERN DIVISION

DANIEL AARON BAXLEY, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) CASE NO. 2:21-cv-514-RAH ) OFFICER CUNNINGHAM, et al., ) ) Defendants. ) ORDER On June 25, 2024, the Magistrate Judge filed a Recommendation in this case. (Doc. 33.) On July 17, 2024, Plaintiff filed an Objection (Doc. 36) in which he merely objects to the Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation without citing specific facts or laws. When a party objects to a Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, the district court must review the disputed portions de novo.

(b)(1). The district court “may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or resubmit the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). De novo review requires that the district court independently consider factual issues based on the record. Jeffrey S. ex rel. Ernest S. v. State Bd. of Educ.,

(11th Cir. 1990). See also United States v. Gopie,

, 499 n.1 (11th Cir. 2009). However, objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation must be sufficiently specific in order to warrant de novo review. See Macort v. Prem, Inc.,

, 783– 85 (11th Cir. 2006). Otherwise, a Report and Recommendation is reviewed for clear error.

Upon an independent review of the record, it is ORDERED as follows: 1. The Objection (Doc. 36) is OVERRULED. 2. The Recommendation (Doc. 33) is ADOPTED. 3. The Special Report (Doc. 25), which was construed as Motion for Summary Judgment, is GRANTED. 4. This action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. A separate final judgment will follow. DONE on this the 14th day of August, 2024.

R. Ck Meo JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE