Opinion
Civil Action 9:23-CV-00059-MJT
12-14-2023
WOODROW J JONES SR, Plaintiff, v. GRAPELAND INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT, DON JACKSON, INDIVIDUALLY AND IN HIS/HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY; KRISTI BELL, INDIVIDUALLY AND IN HIS/HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY; BRAD SPISAK, INDIVIDUALLY AND IN HIS/HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY; DAVID MAASS, EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, SUSANA NAHAS, INVESTIGATOR; DEIDRA HENRY, INVESTIGATOR; ELIZABETH PORRAS, TRAVIS M NICHOLSON, JAMES MARTIN, JOSH GOOLSBY, TIM HOWARD, CHANCE HUFF, ALLEN CHEATHAM, RYAN RICHIE, MELISSA COBB, KENDRA HUFF, LIGITA D. LANDRY, Defendants.
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Michael J. Truncale United States District Judge
On March 22, 2023, the Court referred this case to United States Magistrate Judge Zack Hawthorn for pretrial management. Pending is pro se Plaintiff Woodrow J. Jones (“Jones”) Sr.'s Motions for Default Judgment against Defendants Erin Norris, Travis Nicholson, Deidra Henry and Susana Nahas. Doc. Nos. 33, 51-54. On October 19, 2023, Judge Hawthorn issued his Report and Recommendation denying the motions because those defendants were not properly served. [Dkt. 55]. Judge Hawthorn also denied Jones' Motion to Object Proof of Service Being Unexecuted on Defendants, Motion for Sanction on Defendants for Failure to Accept Waiver of Summons of Service and/or Summons in a Civil Action and Motion to Opposing Notice of Improper Service (Dkt. Nos. 29, 30, 42).
On October 30, 2023, Jones filed timely objections to the Report and Recommendation. [Dkt. 58]. To the extent that Jones objects to the Report and Recommendation denying the motions for default judgment, this requires the Court to determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge's proposed findings and recommendations to which a specific objection is timely made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). Inasmuch as Jones objects to Judge Hawthorn's rulings on the non-dispositive matters, the Court may reconsider any matter where it has been shown that the magistrate judge's order is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A).
After conducting the proper review, the Court finds Jones' objections lack merit. As illustrated by the magistrate judge, Jones has not shown proper service to allow for the possibility of a default judgment. Moreover, Judge Hawthorn's rulings on the other non-dispositive matters are not clearly erroneous or contrary to law. The Report and Recommendation [Dkt. 55] is ADOPTED. The Motions for Default Judgment [Dkt. 33, 51-54] are DENIED.