Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alsd-1_15-cv-00373/USCOURTS-alsd-1_15-cv-00373-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

MICKEL SHEPHERD, )

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 15-00373-KD-N

)

STAN WILSON, et al., )

Defendants. )

ORDER

After due and proper consideration of the issues raised, the Report and Recommendation 

(Doc. 48) of the Magistrate Judge dated December 21, 2015, and made under 28 U.S.C. § 

636(b)(1)(B)-(C), Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b), and S.D. Ala. GenLR 72(a)(2)(S), is 

ADOPTED as the opinion of this Court. 1

Accordingly, it is ORDERED as follows:

1. Defendant Richard Stringer’s motion to strike (Doc. 42) is DENIED;

2. The Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)

(Docs. 7, 18, 26) are GRANTED as to Plaintiff Mickel Shepherd’s federal claims in his 

Complaint (Doc. 1); 

 1 Plaintiff filed a motion for extension of time to file objections, which the Court denied. (Docs. 49-50). The motion 

stated, “However, in the alternative, a Blanket OBJECTION is filed this date with this Court. The Plaintiff’s case is 

not Time Barred due to the fact the mistreatment by the Defendants existed up until the date this legal action was 

filed. The Amended Complaint should not be Denied because there are many legal theories which support the 

Plaintiff’s Complaint as Amended against all Defendants.” (Doc. 49 at 1 capitalizations and emphasis in original). 

“Parties filing objections to a magistrate’s report and recommendation must specifically identify those findings 

objected to. Frivolous, conclusive, or general objections need not be considered by the district court.” Marsden v. 

Moore, 847 F.2d 1536, 1548 (11th Cir. 1988). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s “blanket objection” was not considered. See 

also Green v. McNeil, 2010 WL 3833967, at *1 (S.D. Fla. Sept. 30, 2010)(“address[ing] the R & R as if no 

objection was filed” when party filed a “blanket objection.”). 

Case 1:15-cv-00373-KD-N Document 51 Filed 01/08/16 Page 1 of 3
3. Shepherd’s requests for leave to amend and to engage in discovery embedded in his 

response brief (Doc. 32 at 4-5) and his separate motion for leave to amend (Doc. 47) are 

DENIED; and

4. The Court declines to continue exercising supplemental jurisdiction over Shepherd’s state 

law, county law, and Cooperative rules and by-laws claims in his Complaint (Doc. 1) and 

DISMISSES those claims WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

Final judgment in accordance with this Order and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58 

shall be entered by separate document.

DONE and ORDERED this 8th day of January 2016.

/s/ Kristi K. DuBose

KRISTI K. DuBOSE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-00373-KD-N Document 51 Filed 01/08/16 Page 2 of 3
Case 1:15-cv-00373-KD-N Document 51 Filed 01/08/16 Page 3 of 3