Joel Butko v. San Diego Police Department

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA PENSACOLA DIVISION JOEL BUTKO, Plaintiff, v. Case No. 3:26-cv-1466-TKW-ZCB SAN DIEGO POLICE DEPARTMENT, Defendant. / ORDER This case is before the Court based on the magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 4) and Plaintiff’s objection (Doc. 6). The Court reviewed the issues raised in the objection de novo under 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). Based on that review, the Court agrees with the magistrate judge’s determination that this case should be dismissed based on Plaintiff’s failure to fully disclose his litigation history. See McNair v. Johnson, 141 F.4th 1301, 1308 (11th Cir. 2025).

The Court did not overlook Plaintiff’s argument that his failure to fully disclose his litigation history was “unknowing” because he did not realize that the Court received the 2021 case that he did not disclose. That, however, is not an excuse because Plaintiff obviously knew that he filed that case.! Accordingly, it is ORDERED that: 1. The magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation is adopted and incorporated by reference in this Order.

2. This case is DISMISSED without preyudice under the Court’s inherent authority based on Plaintiff’s failure to fully disclose his litigation history.

3. The Clerk shall enter judgment in accordance with this Order and close the case file.

DONE AND ORDERED this 10th day of April, 2026.

Tho © fe T.KENT WETHERELL, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE ! The Court did not overlook the assertion in the objection that “[p]revious inquiry to the Clerk of Court around the time of filing did not reveal any case,” Doc. 6 at 2, but Plaintiff did not provide any documentation of his communication with the Clerk to support that assertion.

Page 2 of 2