MARTIN
v.
BOWERS
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 case should be dismissed as malicious due to the plaintiff's failure to fully disclose his litigation history.
Plaintiff filed a case that was referred to a magistrate judge. The magistrate judge issued a Report and Recommendation (R&R) recommending dismissal a…
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 28 U.S.C. § 1915(E)(2)(B)(I) cases and more on FLexlaw
This case is before the Court based on the magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation (R&R) (Doc. 6) [fn 1]. No objections were filed.
Upon due consideration of the R&R and the case file, the Court agrees with the magistrate judge's determination that this case should be dismissed as malicious based on Plaintiff's failure to fully disclose his litigation history. See Burrell v. Moore, 857 F. App'x 624, 625 (11th Cir. 2021) (“An action is malicious when a prisoner misrepresents his prior litigation history on a complaint form requiring disclosure of such history and signs the complaint under penalty of perjury....").
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that:
1. The magistrate judge's R&R is adopted and incorporated by reference in this Order.
2. This case is DISMISSED without prejudice as malicious under 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2)(B)(i).
3. The Clerk shall enter judgment in accordance with this Order and close the case file.
DONE and ORDERED this 26th day of January, 2024.
T. KENT WETHERELL, II UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
[fn 1]: The copy of the R&R mailed to Plaintiff's address of record was returned as undeliverable by the Post Office. See Doc. 7. The Clerk re-mailed the R&R on January 2, 2024, to the Florida State Prison address reflected on the forwarding label, id., and Plaintiff presumably received that copy of the R&R because it was not returned by the Post Office.