Smith v. Retirement Systems of Alabama et al (MAG+), No. 2:2021cv00335 - Document 23 (M.D. Ala. 2022)
Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER: it is ORDERED as follows: 1) The Plaintiff's 21 objections are OVERRULED; 2) The 17 Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is ADOPTED; and 3) This case is DISMISSED without prejudice; A separate Final Judgment will be entered. Signed by Chief Judge Emily C. Marks on 4/22/2022. (amf, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Smith v. Retirement Systems of Alabama et al (MAG+) Doc. 23 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHERN DIVISION PETER JAMES SMITH, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Plaintiff, v. RETIREMENT SYSTEMS OF ALABAMA, et al., Defendants. CIVIL ACT. NO. 2:21-cv-335-ECM (WO) OPINION and ORDER Now pending before the court is the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (doc. 17) which recommends that this case be dismissed without prejudice for the Plaintiff’s failure to abide by the orders of this Court. On April 1, 2022, the Plaintiff filed objections to the Recommendation. (Doc. 21). 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 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 Dockets.Justia.com 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 simply objects to the Report and Recommendation without any specificity and without stating the bases for his objections. 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. Accordingly, for the reasons as stated and for good cause, it is ORDERED as follows: 1. The Plaintiff’s objections (doc. 21) are OVERRULED; 2. The Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (doc. 17) is ADOPTED; and 3. This case is DISMISSED without prejudice. A separate Final Judgment will be entered. Done this 22nd day of April, 2022. /s/ Emily C. Marks EMILY C. MARKS CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
]]>
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.
