Michael Edwards v. U.S. Postal Service

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHERN DIVISION MICHAEL EDWARDS, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) CASE NO. 2:25-cv-720-ECM ) U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, ) ) Defendant. ) O R D E R On February 5, 2026, the Magistrate Judge recommended that pro se Plaintiff Michael Edwards’ (“Edwards”) civil action be dismissed without prejudice because Edwards failed to timely file an amended complaint as ordered by the Court. (Doc. 15).

Edwards timely filed objections to the Recommendation. (Doc. 16). After carefully reviewing the record in this case, the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, and Edwards’ objections, the Court concludes that Edwards’ 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. 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, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge[,] . . . receive further evidence[,] or recommit 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). 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, 847 F.2d 745, 750 (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. See Macort v. Prem, Inc., 208 F. App’x 781, 784 (11th Cir. 2006).1 After careful review, the Court finds that Edwards has not raised a specific objection to any portion of the Recommendation and instead merely restates the allegations in his complaint. The Court discerns no error—let alone clear error—in the Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation. Consequently, Edwards’ objections are due to be overruled.

Accordingly, upon an independent review of the record, and for good cause, it is ORDERED as follows: 1. Edwards’ objections (doc. 16) are OVERRULED; 2. The Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (doc. 15) is ADOPTED, and this case is DISMISSED without prejudice; 3. All pending motions are DENIED as moot, and all pending deadlines are TERMINATED.

A separate Final Judgment will be entered.

1 While the Court recognizes that Macort is nonprecedential, the Court finds it persuasive.

DONE this 14th day of April, 2026.

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