Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

TERRANCE BRITTON,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 5:21-cv-4-TKW/MJF

JASON KLINGENSMITH, et al.,

Defendants.

/

ORDER

This case is before the Court based on the magistrate judge’s Report and 

Recommendation (Doc. 56) and Plaintiff’s objection (Doc. 58). The Court reviewed 

the issues raised in the objection de novo as required by 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1) and 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). Based on that review, the Court agrees with the magistrate 

judge’s determination that this case should be dismissed because Plaintiff’s 

pleadings are incomprehensible and he repeatedly failed to correct the deficiencies 

in the pleadings as directed by the magistrate judge. 

The Court did not overlook Plaintiff’s argument that he is uneducated and that 

he did not know how to file a proper complaint. However, as stated in the Report 

and Recommendation (and as confirmed by the Court’s review of the docket), the 

magistrate judge advised Plaintiff multiple times in simple and straightforward 

language what he needed to do to file a proper complaint.

Case 5:21-cv-00004-TKW-MJF Document 59 Filed 08/08/22 Page 1 of 3
Page 2 of 3

Nor did the Court overlook that Plaintiff wants to “press charges” against 

prison officials for various misdeeds and that he wants the Court to conduct an 

investigation and “close down” his prison and arrest confinement staff, prison 

administrators, the warden, and the Secretary of the Florida Department of 

Corrections (FDOC). However, the Court does not have the authority to provide 

that relief. Requests for investigations or arrests should be made to the local state 

attorney or the FDOC Inspector General, not this Court.

Finally, the Court did not overlook Plaintiff’s filing titled “Requests All 

Filings Motions and Summary Dockets Case Review” (Doc. 57). In that filing, 

Plaintiff requests “leave of the court to proceed with future filings in state court,” a 

list of all the cases he filed in this Court in the past 5 years, and documents from 

those cases. This Court does not have the authority to permit (or prohibit) future 

filings in state court, so that request for relief will be denied. However, the Court 

will refer Plaintiff’s request for information about his prior cases to the Clerk for an 

appropriate response.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that:

1. The magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation is adopted and 

incorporated by reference in this Order.

2. This case is DISMISSED with prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§§1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and (ii) and 1915A(b)(1).

Case 5:21-cv-00004-TKW-MJF Document 59 Filed 08/08/22 Page 2 of 3
Page 3 of 3

3. All relief requested in Plaintiff’s filing titled “Requests All Filings 

Motions and Summary Dockets Case Review” (Doc. 57) is DENIED, except that 

the Clerk shall respond to Plaintiff’s request for information about his prior cases in 

this Court and the process for obtaining copies of documents in those cases.

4. The Clerk shall close the case file.

DONE and ORDERED this 8th day of August, 2022.

__________________________________

T. KENT WETHERELL, II

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 5:21-cv-00004-TKW-MJF Document 59 Filed 08/08/22 Page 3 of 3