Gregory Kelly, et al. v. Alabama Department of Workforce, et al.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHERN DIVISION GREGORY KELLY, et al., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) CASE NO. 2:25-CV-00844-BL-KFP ) ALABAMA DEPARTMENT OF ) WORKFORCE, et al., ) ) Defendants. ) ORDER1 On May 21, 2025, the court declared Gregory Kelly a vexatious litigant “as a consequence of Kelly’s vexatious filing of shotgun pleadings” and further ordered that “in the event [Gregory] Kelly files a shotgun pleading in the future, after appropriate review, the Court will summarily dismiss the pleading and action without prejudice.” See Kelly v. Montgomery Water Works & Sanitary Sewer Bd., No. 2:24-cv-00348-RAH, 2025 WL 1461271, at *1 (M.D. Ala. May 21, 2025). On December 15, 2025, because Annette B.

Kelly began to join Gregory Kelly as a co-plaintiff in repeatedly filing frivolous and shotgun complaints, the court ordered that “in the event Gregory Kelly or anyone acting in concert with him, including Annette B. Kelly, files a shotgun or facially frivolous complaint in the future, after appropriate review, the Court will summarily dismiss the pleading and the action without prior notice.” Kelly v. Alabama State Port Auth., No. 2:25- cv-0825-RAH, 2025 WL 3633214, at *2 (M.D. Ala. Dec. 15, 2025).

1 The above-styled case was reassigned to the undersigned District Judge on November 12, 2025.

On October 23, 2025, the Kellys filed this civil action against 27 defendants, including state agencies, commissions, and community and technical colleges alleging 63 causes of action including constitutional violations, federal statutory violations, and multiple violations of state law. (Doc. 1). On December 22, 2025, the Magistrate Judge recommended that this action be dismissed without prejudice because the complaint is a shotgun pleading and because the Kellys have failed to comply with court orders. (See Doc. 5). On December 29, 2025, the Kellys filed a Motion to Strike the Recommendation and Motion for Appointment of a Special Master, which the court construes as objections to the recommendation. (See Doc. 6).

A district court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). A district judge must “make a de novo determination of those portions of the [magistrate judge’s] report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3) (“The district judge must determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge's disposition that has been properly objected to.”).

A district court’s obligation to “make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made” requires a district judge to “give fresh consideration to those issues to which specific objection has been made by a party.” United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 673, 675 (1980) (internal quotations and citations omitted) (emphasis in Raddatz).

Construing the objections liberally, the Kellys object to the recommendation on the grounds that it was “motivated by racial and political animus.” (Doc. 6 at 1). However, the Kellys have failed to challenge a specific factual finding or legal conclusion of the Magistrate Judge. Because the Kellys have failed to identify an error in the Magistrate Judge’s factual findings or legal conclusions, the court OVERRULES the Kellys’ objections, (doc. 6).

After careful review of the file and upon consideration of the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, the court ADOPTS the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge.

Accordingly, itis ORDERED as follows: 1. This action is DISMISSED without prejudice.

2. All pending motions are DENIED as moot, and all pending deadlines are TERMINATED. The court will enter a separate final judgment.

DONE and ORDERED on this the 16th day of March, 2026. fel BILL LEWIS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE