TUCKER
v.
JONES
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 held that the plaintiff's complaint failed to state a viable claim against any defendant and dismissed the case with prejudice.
The plaintiff filed a complaint against 37 defendants, which was reviewed by a magistrate judge. The plaintiff filed lengthy, handwritten objections t…
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 Futility Of Amendment cases and more on FLexlaw
This case is before the Court based on the magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 24) and the objections filed by Plaintiff (Doc. 31). The objections, like Plaintiff’s other filings in this case, are inordinately long (302 singlespaced paragraphs spanning 26 pages with virtually no left or right margins) and are difficult to read because they are handwritten in the equivalent of a 10-point or less font. The Court has done its best to make sense of the objections. Based on the Court’s de novo review of the issues properly1 raised in the objections, the Court agrees with the magistrate judge’s determination that this case
recommends that this case be dismissed without prejudice (see Doc. 24, at 29), the Court finds that dismissal with prejudice is appropriate because, as the magistrate judge stated (see id. at 1, 28), Plaintiff has been given three opportunities to amend
his complaint and it would be futile (and contrary to the Prison Litigation Reform Act) to allow him another opportunity to do so. See Alberto v. Sec’y, Fla. Dep’t of Corr., 770 F. App’x 467, 469 (11th Cir. 2019) (“A court may . . . dismiss a pro se complaint with prejudice where any amendment would be futile—that is, where even
‘a more carefully drafted complaint could not state a claim.’”) (quoting Woldeab v. Decalb Cty. Bd. Of Educ., 885 F. 3d 1289, 1291 (11th Cir. 2018)). Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that: 1. The magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation is adopted and incorporated by reference in this order, except as stated above. 2. Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (see note1, supra) is DENIED.
3. The third amended complaint (Doc. 22) is DISMISSED with prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915A(b)(1).
4. The Clerk shall close the case file.
DONE and ORDERED this 13th day of September, 2019.
T. Kent Wetherell, II
T. KENT WETHERELL, II
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Damene W. Woldeab v. Dekalb Cnty. Bd. OF Educ., 885 F.3d 1289 (11th Cir. 2018)