Roland Graybill v. Calhoun County Clerk of Court, et al.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA PANAMA CITY DIVISION ROLAND GRAYBILL, Plaintiff, v. Case No. 5:25-cv-245-TKW-MJF CALHOUN COUNTY CLERK OF COURT, et al., Defendants. / ORDER This case is before the Court based on the magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation (R&R) (Doc. 21). No objections were filed.1 Upon due consideration of the R&R and the entire case file, the Court agrees with the magistrate judge’s determination that this case should be dismissed without prejudice because Plaintiff’s third amended complaint is a “shotgun pleading.” The Court did not overlook the new complaints (Docs. 23, 24) filed by Plaintiff after the R&R was issued, but those documents do not cure the problems identified by the Plaintiff filed multiple documents after the R&R was issued—“How to Avoid or Fix a Shotgun Pleading” (Doc. 22); “Fourth Amended Complaint as Additional Addendum for Info Related with Info of a Non-Shotgun Type Pleading” (Doc. 23); “Verified 2nd Civil Complaint for Denial of Access to Courts, Due Process Violations, Negligence, Retaliation, and Damages as a Non Shotgun Type of Pleading Each Party is Separated Out with Separate Allegations” (Doc. 24); and “Affidavit of Economic and Personal Harm” (Doc. 25)—but none of those documents object to or otherwise take issue with the magistrate judge’s determination that the third amended complaint was an impermissible shotgun pleading. magistrate judge because, as the magistrate judge previously explained, “[t]he federal rules do not authorize litigants to submit their pleadings in a piecemeal fashion [and] contemplate the use of only one complaint per litigant.” Doc. 19 at 1 (quoting Aufderhaar v. Warder, 2021 WL 7448081, at *4 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 3, 2021), report and recommendation adopted, No. 8:21-CV-419-MSS-CPT, 2021 WL 7448085 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 30, 2021)). Thus, although the fourth amended complaint itself is slightly better pled than the prior iterations of the complaint, the disposition recommended by the magistrate judge (dismissal of this case without prejudice) is still warranted because Plaintiff has continued to file multiple complaints in violation of the rules of procedure and the magistrate judge’s prior orders.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that: 1. The magistrate judge’s R&R is adopted and incorporated by reference in this Order.

2. This case is DISMISSED without prejudice because the third amended complaint is a “shotgun pleading” that fails to comply with the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure and the new complaints filed after the R&R was issued violate the rules and prior court orders.

3. The Clerk shall terminate all pending motions, enter judgment in accordance with this Order, and close the case file.

DONE AND ORDERED this 17th day of February, 2026.

To [bol Wo T. KENT WETHERELL, I UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Page 3 of 3