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

JACQUELYN HARDY, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) CASE NO. 2:24-cv-341-ECM ) LEE BARNES, ) ) Defendant. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION and ORDER

Plaintiff Jacquelyn Hardy, proceeding pro se, brought this civil action arising out of her efforts to contest a speeding ticket. On August 2, 2024, the Magistrate Judge entered a Recommendation that this action be dismissed without prejudice. (Doc. 9). On August 30, 2024, the Plaintiff filed objections to the Recommendation. (Doc. 11).1 After carefully reviewing the record in this case, the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, and the Plaintiff’s objections, 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 without prejudice. When a party objects to a Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, the district court must review the disputed portions de novo.

(b)(1); see also United States v. Raddatz,

(1980). The district court “may accept, reject,

1 Objections to the Recommendation were due by August 16, 2024. (Doc. 9 at 16). While the Plaintiff’s objections are likely due to be overruled as untimely, the Court will assume without deciding that the objections were timely filed. or modify the recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or resubmit the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.”

(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.,

(11th Cir. 1990). However, objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation must be sufficiently specific in order to warrant de novo review. See LoConte v. Dugger,

(11th Cir. 1988) (“Whenever any party files a timely and specific objection to a finding of fact by a magistrate [judge], the district court has an obligation to conduct a de

novo review of the record with respect to that factual issue.”). Otherwise, a Report and Recommendation is reviewed for clear error. The Magistrate Judge recommends that this action be dismissed without prejudice because venue is not proper in the Middle District of Alabama, and that dismissal rather than transfer is appropriate because the Plaintiff has failed to sufficiently allege a

cognizable legal claim or factual allegations to support that claim. The Court has carefully reviewed the Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation, the Plaintiff’s objections, and the entire record in this case. The Plaintiff’s objections amount to general or conclusory objections, which are reviewed for clear error, or restatements of allegations already presented and addressed in the Recommendation. While the Plaintiff’s objections reflect a disagreement

with the Recommendation’s findings and conclusions, the Plaintiff fails to establish that the Magistrate Judge committed any error. Consequently, her objections are due to be overruled. 2 Accordingly, upon an independent review of the record, and for good cause, it is ORDERED as follows:

1. The Plaintiff’s objections (doc. 11) are OVERRULED; 2. The Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (doc. 9) is ADOPTED; 3. This case is DISMISSED without prejudice. A separate Final Judgment will be entered. DONE this 4th day of December, 2024.

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

3