Opinion
2:21-CV-238-RAH [WO]
06-10-2022
PETER J. SMITH, Plaintiff, v. JACKSON HOSPITAL, et al., Defendants.
ORDER
R. AUSTIN HUFFAKER, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Pending before the Court is the Report and Reccommendation of the Magsitrate Judge (doc. 9) which recommends that this case be dismissed without prejudice, prior to service of process, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. On June 1, 2022, Plaintiff filed objections to the Reccommendation. (Doc. 11.)
When a party objects to a Magistrate Judge's Report and Reccommendation, the district court must review the disputed portions de novo. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The district court “may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or resubmit the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(3). De novo review requires that the district court independently consider factual issues based on the record. Jeffrey S. ex rel. Ernest S. v. State Bd. Of Educ., 896 F.2d 507, 513 (11th Cir. 1990). However, objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Reccommendation must be sufficiently specific in order to warrant de novo review. See Stokes v. Singletary, 952 F.2d 1567, 1576 (11th Cir. 1992) (“[w]henever any party files a timely and specific objection to a finding of fact by a magistrate, the district court has an obligation to conduct a de novo review of the record with respect to that factual issue.”) (quotation omitted). Otherwise, a Report and Reccommendation is reviewed for clear error.
The Court has reviewed Plaintiff's objections wherein he simply objects to the Report and Reccommendation without any specificity and without stating the bases for his objections. Due to the lack of specificity in Plaintiff's objections, the Court undertook a review of Plaintiff's objections under the clear error standard.
Plaintiff does not point to any error committed by the Magistrate Judge. Accordingly, for the reasons as stated and for good cause, it is ORDERED as follows:
1. Plaintiff's objections (doc. 11) are OVERRULED;
2. The Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (doc. 9) is ADOPTED;
3. This case is DISMISSED without prejudice prior to service of process; and A separate Final Judgment will be entered.
DONE.