Derrick Grantley v. Tori Tatum, et al.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA PENSACOLA DIVISION DERRICK GRANTLEY, Plaintiff, v. Case No. 3:26-cv-282-AW-HTC TORI TATUM, et al., Defendants. _______________________________/ ORDER OF DISMISSAL Having considered the report and recommendation (ECF No. 5), and having considered de novo the issues raised in Plaintiff’s objections (ECF No. 6), I now adopt the report and recommendation and incorporate it into this order. It is undisputed that Plaintiff did not comply with the court’s local rules because he did not accurately disclose his litigation history. (The court’s local rules require use of prisoner forms, which in turn require accurate disclosures.) I conclude, as a matter of discretion, that dismissal is appropriate under these circumstances. See McNair v. Johnson, 143 F.4th 1301 (11th Cir. 2025). I reject Plaintiff’s contention in his objections that the only purpose of the requirement is to determine a plaintiff’s three- strikes status. That is one purpose, but not the only one. At any rate, litigants are not entitled to ignore requirements whenever they believe the requirement’s purpose is otherwise fulfilled.

The clerk will enter a judgment that says, “This case is dismissed without prejudice based on Plaintiff’s failure to accurately disclose his litigation history.”

The clerk will then close the file.

SO ORDERED on February 17, 2026. s/ Allen Winsor Chief United States District Judge