NICHOLAS SAMMIE LEE SMITH, JR.
v.
TIMOTHY WEBSTER, ET AL.
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court adopted the magistrate judge's report and recommendation, dismissing the amended complaint as an impermissible shotgun pleading without leave to amend.
Plaintiff filed an amended complaint which the magistrate judge recommended be dismissed as a shotgun pleading. Plaintiff objected and filed a propose…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Judicial Bias cases and more on FLexlaw
This case is before the Court based on the magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation (R&R) (Doc. 81) and Plaintiff's objections (Doc. 86). The Court reviewed the issues raised in the objections de novo under 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3), and based on that review, the Court agrees with the magistrate judge's determination that the amended complaint (like the original complaint) is an impermissible shotgun pleading and that it should be dismissed without leave to amend.
On the latter point, the Court did not overlook the proposed second amended complaint (Doc. 85) that Plaintiff filed after the R&R was issued. However, that document appears to be substantially the same (both in form and substance) as the amended complaint and it suffers from the same substantive deficiencies as the amended complaint. Thus, at this point, it is apparent that it would be futile to allow further amendment. See Cockrell v. Sparks, 510 F. 3d 1307, 1310 (11th Cir. 2007) ("Leave to amend a complaint is futile when the complaint as amended would still be properly dismissed or be immediately subject to summary judgment for the defendant."). Thus, the federal claims will be dismissed with prejudice and the state claims will be dismissed without prejudice to re-filing in state court. See Vibe Micro. v. Shabanets, 878 F. 3d 1291, 1296–97 (11th Cir. 2018).
The Court also did not overlook Plaintiff's complaints about the magistrate judge's characterization of his filings being voluminous, burdensome, and/or frivolous. However, that characterization is amply supported by the record. And, in any event, it is well-established that a judge's critical comments about a party or his legal positions based on the evidence or record is not enough to show partiality or bias. See Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555 (1994); Hamm v. Members of Bd. of Regents of State of Fla., 708 F. 2d 647, 651 (11th Cir. 1983).
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that:
1. The magistrate judge's R&R is adopted and incorporated by reference in this Order.
2. Defendants' motions to dismiss (Docs. 68, 69, 70) are GRANTED insofar as they argue that the amended complaint is an impermissible shotgun pleading and DENIED as moot in all other respects.
3. The amended complaint is DISMISSED as a shotgun pleading without leave to amend. The dismissal of the federal claims is with prejudice and the dismissal of the state claims is without prejudice to refiling in state court.
4. The Clerk shall terminate all pending motions, enter judgment in accordance with this Order, and close the case file.
DONE AND ORDERED this 14th day of October, 2025.
T. KENT WETHERELL, II
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Vibe Micro, Inc. v. Igor Shabanets, 878 F.3d 1291 (11th Cir. 2018)
- Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540 (U.S. 1994)
- Cockrell v. Sparks, 510 F.3d 1307 (11th Cir. 2007)
- Hamm v. Members OF the Bd. OF Regents OF the State OF Fla., 708 F.2d 647 (11th Cir. 1983)