BOWMAN
v.
DIXON
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 accepted the Magistrate Judge's report and recommendation, adopting it as its own opinion.
Plaintiff failed to disclose a prior case with the court, which the Magistrate Judge recommended dismissing without prejudice for abuse of the judicia…
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 Abuse Of Judicial Process cases and more on FLexlaw
This Court has considered, without hearing, the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, ECF No. 19, and has also reviewed de novo Plaintiff's letter, ECF No. 22, and Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration, ECF No. 21, which this Court construes as objections to the report and recommendation. [fn 1]
Plaintiff asserts the Magistrate Judge failed to permit Plaintiff to show cause why he failed to list his prior case with this Court before recommending dismissal for abuse of the judicial process. But the Magistrate Judge has recommended dismissal without prejudice. And Plaintiff has now explained that he simply forgot to list the case he previously filed with this Court. Nonetheless, Plaintiff does not contest that he failed to fully disclose his previous litigation—conduct that "constitutes an abuse of the judicial process warranting dismissal." Sears v. Haas, 509 F. App'x 935, 936 (11th Cir. 2013).
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED:
The report and recommendation, ECF No. 19, is accepted and adopted, over the Plaintiff's objections, as this Court's opinion. The Clerk shall enter judgment stating, "Plaintiff's complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and 1915A(b)(1), for maliciousness and abuse of the judicial process." Plaintiff's pending motions, ECF Nos. 4, 6, 12, and 18, are DENIED as moot. The Clerk shall close the file.
SO ORDERED on April 23, 2024.
s/Mark E. Walker Chief United States District Judge
2
[fn 1]: This Court recognizes that the Magistrate Judge denied Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration on April 22, 2024. ECF No. 23. This Court agrees with Magistrate Judge's ruling on the motion for reconsideration, but, for the sake of thoroughness, this Court also construes Plaintiff's motion as objections to the report and recommendation and considers them de novo.