Fauntleroy v. DeKalb County et al, No. 1:2020cv02254 - Document 21 (N.D. Ga. 2022)
Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER adopting 18 Final Report and Recommendation. The Clerk is DIRECTED to DISMISS this case WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The Clerk is further DIRECTED to SEAL Fauntleroy's objections 20 , which identify the minor victim in the criminal case pending against him as well as the nature of the sexual abuse he allegedly perpetrated against that victim. Signed by Judge Steven D. Grimberg on 02/22/2022. (jkb)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Fauntleroy v. DeKalb County et al Doc. 21 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION LAWRENCE FAUNTLEROY, Plaintiff, Civil Action No. 1:20-cv-02254-SDG v. DEKALB COUNTY, et al., Defendants. OPINION AND ORDER This matter is before the Court for consideration of the Final Report and Recommendation (R&R) entered by United States Magistrate Judge J. Clay Fuller [ECF 18], which recommends that this action be dismissed for failure to state a claim and denies various motions for leave to amend by Plaintiff Lawrence Fauntleroy. Fauntleroy objected to the R&R.1 A party challenging a report and recommendation issued by a United States Magistrate Judge must file written objections that specifically identify the portions of the proposed findings and recommendations to which an objection is made and must assert a specific basis for the objection. United States v. Schultz, 565 F.3d 1353, 1361 (11th Cir. 2009). The district court must “make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Jeffrey S. ex rel. Ernest S. v. State Bd. 1 ECF 20. Dockets.Justia.com of Educ. of Ga., 896 F.2d 507, 512 (11th Cir. 1990). “‘Frivolous, conclusive, or general objections need not be considered by the district court.’” Schultz, 565 F.3d at 1361 (quoting Marsden v. Moore, 847 F.2d 1536, 1548 (11th Cir. 1988)). Fauntleroy’s objections concern the substantive allegations in his Complaint, which the R&R concluded was frivolous and did not state a claim.2 The R&R indicates that the pleading fails to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (specifically, Rules 8, 10, and 20).3 Fauntleroy has not identified any portion of the R&R to which he objects or provided a basis for his general objection to the dismissal recommendation.4 These objections are of the conclusive and general nature that the Court need not consider. Finding no factual or legal error in the R&R, it is ADOPTED as the Order of this Court. The Clerk is DIRECTED to DISMISS this case WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 2 ECF 18, at 5–7. 3 Id. 4 See generally ECF 20. The Clerk is further DIRECTED to SEAL Fauntleroy’s objections [ECF 20], which identify the minor victim in the criminal case pending against him as well as the nature of the sexual abuse he allegedly perpetrated against that victim. SO ORDERED this 22nd day of February, 2022. Steven D. Grimberg United States District Court 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.
