Jonathan-Emmanuel: Jackson v. Robert L. Mack, et al.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

AUGUSTA DIVISION

J ONATHAN-EMMANUEL: JACKSON, )

Plaintiff, v. CV 126-090

ROBERT L. MACK, et al.,

Defendants.

ORDER

After a careful, de novo review of the file, the Court concurs with the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, to which objections have been filed. (Doc. no. 9.) The Magistrate Judge recommended this case be dismissed because Plaintiff failed to file a renewed motion to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP’’) and a complaint as instructed in the Court’s May 22, 2026 Order. (Doc. no. 7.) The majority of Plaintiffs objections assert meritless sovereign citizen style arguments, which the Magistrate Judge already identified and rejected, but two aspects of Plaintiff's objections warrant brief comment. (See doc. no. 9.)

In his objections, Plaintiff claims his failure to submit a complaint and renewed IFP motion in compliance with the instructions in the May 22nd Order was justified, and he avers he is prepared to submit these filings later if the undersigned District Judge so orders. (Id. at 8-10.) As to the complaint, Plaintiff explains he did not file this pleading because he was awaiting the undersigned’s ruling on a separate motion he filed, which he avers was “his substantive response to the [C]ourt’s concerns regarding jurisdiction.” (Id. at 8-9.) This filing, titled “Petition to the Chancellor for Direction,” is not a complaint and does not follow the instructions set forth in the May 22nd Order. (See doc. no. 7.) It is thus not responsive to the May 22nd Order.

As to the renewed IFP motion, Plaintiff provides some additional detail about his financial circumstances in his objections and states he will submit a fully completed IFP motion later “upon ruling.” (Doc. no. 9, p. 9.) Plaintiff did not file a renewed IFP motion as ordered and provides no persuasive explanation for his failure. His contention that he is awaiting the Court’s ruling, presumably on his “Petition to the Chancellor for Direction,” is not a justifiable reason for his failure. Thus, Plaintiff did not follow the Court’s instruction to file a renewed IFP motion, and a hollow promise that he will submit the requested form later is wholly insufficient.

In sum, by failing to submit a complaint and renewed IFP motion, Plaintiff failed to follow a court order. As the Magistrate Judge explained, “dismissal without prejudice is generally appropriate pursuant to Rule 41(b) where a plaintiff has failed to comply with a court order, especially where the litigant has been forewarned.’” (Doc. no. 7, p. 2 (quoting Owens v. Pinellas Cty. Sheriff's Dep’t, 331 F. App’x 654, 655 (11th Cir. 2009))); see also Loc. R. 41.1(b) (Court may dismiss an action sua sponte for “willful disobedience or neglect of any order of the Court”). Plaintiff's assertions he need not follow the Magistrate Judge’s May 22nd Order are baseless, and his explanations for his failure to submit the complaint and renewed IFP motion are unpersuasive.

Accordingly, the Court OVERRULES Plaintiff's objections, ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge as its opinion as, DISMISSES this case without prejudice, and CLOSES this civil action. Because this case is dismissed, Plaintiff's “Petition to the Chancellor for Direction” is DENIED as MOOT. (Doc. no. 6.)

SO ORDERED this L3 “ day of July, 2026, at Augusta, Georgia.

A yo

MALAE

MACE TE

HONORASIET. RANDAL HALL

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA