Kelly v. Montgomery County and City Board (MAG+)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHERN DIVISION GREGORY KELLY, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) CASE NO. 2:24-cv-362-ECM ) [WO] MONTGOMERY COUNTY AND ) CITY BOARD, et al., ) ) Defendants. ) MEMORANDUM OPINION and ORDER On January 16, 2025, the Magistrate Judge entered a Recommendation that this case be dismissed without prejudice because Plaintiff Gregory Kelly’s (“Kelly”) second amended complaint (the operative complaint) fails to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, specifically Rule 8. (Doc. 56). On January 30, 2025, Kelly filed a combined response to the Recommendation and a motion for default judgment. (Doc. 59). The Court construes Kelly’s January 30 filing as objections to the Recommendation. After carefully reviewing the record in this case, the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, and Kelly’s objections, the Court concludes that Kelly’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 without prejudice. 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, Kelly’s objections, and the entire record in this case. Kelly asserts that he objects to the Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation, but he does not specifically object to any findings or conclusions. Instead, he merely restates the allegations in his second amended complaint and requests that the Court enter default judgment against the Defendants. Kelly’s general and conclusory objections are reviewed for clear error and are due to be overruled. While Kelly obviously disagrees with the Recommendation, he fails to show that the Magistrate Judge committed any error. The Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s findings and conclusions that the second amended complaint falls well short of complying with Rule 8’s requirement that Kelly’s pleading contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that [he] is entitled to relief.” [2] Accordingly, upon an independent review of the record, and for good cause, it is ORDERED as follows: 1. Kelly’s objections (doc. 59) are OVERRULED; 2. The Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (doc. 56) is ADOPTED; 3. This case is DISMISSED without prejudice; 4. All pending motions are DENIED as moot, and all pending deadlines are TERMINATED; 5. As soon as practicable but no later than June 30, 2025, Kelly shall pick up the service packets in this case from the Middle District of Alabama Clerk’s Office, located at 1 Church Street, Montgomery, AL 36104. A separate Final Judgment will be entered. DONE this 29th day of May, 2025. /s/ Emily C. Marks EMILY C. MARKS CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE