Opinion
3:22-CV-702-RAH
07-25-2024
CHARLES STANTON SULLIVAN, JR., as personal representative for the estate of Ruth S. Sullivan, deceased, Plaintiff, v. PRATTVILLE HEALTH AND REHABILITATION, LLC, et al., Defendants.
ORDER
R. AUSTIN HUFFAKER, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
On May 29, 2024, the Magistrate Judge recommended this case should be dismissed with prejudice due to the Plaintiff's failure to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 8(a). (Doc. 164.) On June 17, 2024, Plaintiff filed a motion to reconsider (Doc. 165), which the Court construed as including Objections to the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation. (See Doc. 167, Order construing as Objections.)
When a party objects to a Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, a district court must review the disputed portions de novo. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The 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). See also United States v. Gopie, 347 Fed.Appx. 495, 499 n.1 (11th Cir. 2009). However, objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation must be sufficiently specific to warrant de novo review. See Macort v. Prem, Inc., 208 Fed.Appx. 781, 783-85 (11th Cir. 2006). Otherwise, a Report and Recommendation is reviewed for clear error. Id.
This Court has independently reviewed the record, including the Plaintiff's pleadings, motions, and narratives, the Magistrate Judge's well-reasoned Recommendation, and the Plaintiff's Objections. Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that the Objections (Doc. 165) are OVERRULED, the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation (Doc. 164) is ADOPTED, and this case is DISMISSED with prejudice.
A final judgment will be filed separately.