Carden v. Mull (INMATE 1)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHERN DIVISION SHANE EUGENE CARDEN, ) #270176, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) CASE NO. 2:23-cv-435-ECM ) MIKE MULL, et al., ) ) Defendants. ) MEMORANDUM OPINION and ORDER Plaintiff Shane Eugene Carden, an inmate in the custody of the Alabama Department of Corrections, brought this pro se civil action which is now before the Court on his third amended complaint. (See doc. 16). On March 11, 2025, the Magistrate Judge entered a Recommendation that this case be dismissed for the Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Court’s Orders and failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. (Doc. 21). On March 26, 2025, the Plaintiff filed objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation. (Doc. 23). After carefully reviewing the record in this case, the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, and the Plaintiff’s objections, the Court concludes that the Plaintiff’s 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. 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 the recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or resubmit 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. The Court has carefully reviewed the Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation, the Plaintiff’s objections, and the entire record in this case. To the extent the Plaintiff raises general or conclusory objections, or merely restates the allegations in his third amended complaint, those objections are reviewed for clear error and are due to be overruled. Moreover, while the Plaintiff’s objections reflect a disagreement with the Recommendation, the Plaintiff fails to show that the Magistrate Judge committed any error. Consequently, his objections are due to be overruled. Accordingly, upon an independent review of the record, and for good cause, it is ORDERED as follows: 1. The Plaintiff’s objections (doc. 23) are OVERRULED; 2. The Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (doc. 21) is ADOPTED; [2] 3. All pending motions are DENIED as moot; 4. This case is DISMISSED with prejudice. A separate Final Judgment will be entered. DONE this 11th day of April, 2025. /s/ Emily C. Marks EMILY C. MARKS CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE