Malloy v. Weller et al (INMATE 2), No. 2:2021cv00332 - Document 14 (M.D. Ala. 2022)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: in order to consider the Plf's objections, it is ORDERED that the 12 final judgment and 11 memorandum opinion entered on 2/15/2022 are VACATED; Accordingly, upon an independent review of the file in this case and for good cause, it is ORDERED as follows that: 1) the Plf's 13 objections are OVERRULED; 2) the 10 Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is ADOPTED; and 3) this case is DISMISSED with prejudice prior to service of process pursuant to 28 USC 1915(e)(2)(B)(i-iii); A separate Final Judgment will be entered. Signed by Chief Judge Emily C. Marks on 2/24/2022. (es, )

Download PDF
Malloy v. Weller et al (INMATE 2) Doc. 14 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHERN DIVISION ARTHUR BRENNAN MALLOY, #101329, Plaintiff, v. JULIA JORDAN WELLER - CLERK OF THE SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA, et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CIV. ACT. NO. 2:21-cv-332-ECM (WO) MEMORANDUM OPINION and ORDER On January 25, 2022, the Magistrate Judge entered a Recommendation that this case be dismissed with prejudice prior to service of process pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i-iii). (Doc. 10). Objections to the Recommendation were due no later than February 8, 2022. On February 15, 2022, the Court entered a memorandum opinion and final judgment dismissing this case. (Docs. 11 & 12). However, the Plaintiff’s objections to the Recommendation signed on February 4, 2022, were not received by the Court until February 16, 2022. (Doc. 13). Accordingly, in order to consider the Plaintiff’s objections, it is ORDERED that the final judgment (doc. 12) and memorandum opinion (doc. 11) entered on February 15, 2022 are VACATED. 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). The Dockets.Justia.com 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). However, objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation must be sufficiently specific in order to warrant de novo review. See Stokes v. Singletary, 952 F.2d 1567, 1576 (11th Cir. 1992) (“[w]henever any party files a timely and specific objection to a finding of fact by a magistrate, the district court has an obligation to conduct a de novo review of the record with respect to that factual issue.”) (quoting LoConte v. Dugger, 847 F.2d 745, 750 (11th Cir. 1988)). Otherwise, a Report and Recommendation is reviewed for clear error. The Court has reviewed the Plaintiff’s objections wherein he reiterates the claims presented in the amended complaint. Due to the lack of specificity in the Plaintiff’s objections, the Court undertook a review of the Plaintiff’s Objections under the clear error standard. The Plaintiff does not point to any error committed by the Magistrate Judge, but instead re-offers a recitation of the claims made in his amended complaint. The Court finds that the well-reasoned Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge effectively addresses the Plaintiff’s claims. Accordingly, upon an independent review of the file in this case and for good cause, it is ORDERED as follows that: 1. the Plaintiff’s objections (doc. 13) are OVERRULED; 2 2. the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (doc. 10) is ADOPTED; and 3. this case is DISMISSED with prejudice prior to service of process pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i-iii). A separate Final Judgment will be entered. Done this 24th day of February, 2022. /s/ Emily C. Marks EMILY C. MARKS CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 3

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.