Devin Pugh v. State of Alabama, et al.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHERN DIVISION DEVIN PUGH, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) CASE NO. 2:25-cv-00946-RAH-KFP ) STATE OF ALABAMA, et al., ) ) Defendants. ) ORDER AND FINAL JUDGMENT On December 1, 2025, pro se Plaintiff Devin Pugh filed this action against the State Alabama, Governor Kate Ivey, and Crenshaw County. This suit is just one of over 60 lawsuits that Pugh has filed in this District since December 2024. This time, Pugh alleges violations of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments associated with public transportation in the State. Pugh has filed similar lawsuits on other previous occasions. And virtually all of Pugh’s lawsuits have been dismissed. On February 5, 2026, the Magistrate Judge recommended that this action be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Magistrate Judge also recommended that Pugh be designated as a vexatious litigant. On February 17, 2026, Pugh filed an objection. When a party objects to a magistrate judge's recommendation, the district court must review the disputed portions de novo. 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1). The district court “may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or resubmit the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). De novo review requires that the district court independently consider factual issues based on the record. Jeffrey S. ex rel. Ernest S. v. State Bd. of Educ., 896 F.2d 507 , 513 (11th Cir. 1990). See also United States v. Opie, 347 F. App'x 495 , 499 n.1 (11th Cir. 2009). However, objections to the magistrate judge's recommendation must be sufficiently specific to warrant de novo review. See Macort v. Prem, Inc., 208 F. App'x 781, 783-85 (11th Cir. 2006). Otherwise, a recommendation is reviewed for clear error. /d. In Pugh’s objection, he does not show any error with the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation, and he does not propose to file an amended complaint that cures the deficiencies in his Complaint. Instead, he continues to advance his conspiratorial, inherent, and rambling accusations against a host of governmental entities and public officials. All told, the Court finds no error with the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. Accordingly, upon an independent and de novo review of the record, it is ORDERED as follows: 1. The Recommendation (doc. 8) of the Magistrate Judge is ADOPTED; 2. Plaintiff's Motion to Inform (doc. 6) is DENIED as moot; 3. Plaintiff's Motion to Appoint Counsel (doc. 10) is DENIED as moot; 3. This case is summarily DISMISSED without prejudice; and 4. As a consequence of Devin Pugh’s vexatious filing of shotgun and frivolous pleadings, in the event Devin Pugh files a shotgun or facially frivolous complaint in the future, after appropriate review, the Court will summarily dismiss the pleading and the action without prior notice, or will require Pugh to pay the full filing fee before proceeding. DONE, on this the 18th day of February 2026. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE