Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

MARK WILSON,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 5:11-cv-25-SPM-GRJ

C E RICHARDSON, et al.,

Defendants.

_____________________________/

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff, an inmate in the custody of the Florida Department of Corrections, 

initiated this case by filing a pro se civil rights complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C § 1983 on

February 27, 2011 (Doc. 1). Plaintiff’s claims pertain to the medical care he has

received while incarcerated at the Northwest Florida Reception Center. Plaintiff alleges

that from July 2009 to March 2010 he sought treatment for complaints stemming from

an injury to his ankle in 2006, and that the treatment he received was deficient in some

respects. Plaintiff names as Defendants Dr. C. E. Richardson, former DOC Secretary

Walter McNeil, and John and Jane Does. Doc. 1. The Court granted Plaintiff leave to

proceed as a pauper and assessed an initial partial filing fee. Doc. 5.

On the same day that the instant case was filed and docketed, the Clerk filed

and docketed a second case from Plaintiff. See Wilson v. Richardson, Case. No. 5:11-

cv-26-RS-GRJ. A review of the complaint in the second case reflects that the claims

asserted are virtually identical to the claims in this case, and Plaintiff names the same

Defendants in both cases. Id. Doc. 1. The Court also granted Plaintiff leave to proceed

as a pauper and assessed an initial partial filing fee in the second case. Doc. 5. 
Page 2 of 3

Rule 42(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides in pertinent part, that

“If actions before the court involve a common question of law or fact, the court may . . .

consolidate the actions.” A district court’s decision to consolidate is purely

discretionary, but in exercising that discretion the court should consider (1) whether the 1

specific risks of prejudice and possible confusion are overborne by the risk of

inconsistent adjudications of common factual and legal issues, (2) the burden on

parties, (3) witnesses and available judicial resources posed by multiple lawsuits, (4)

the length of time required to conclude multiple suits as against a single one, and (5)

the relative expense to all concerned of the single-trial, multiple-trial alternatives.2

Having considered these issues, the undersigned concludes that consolidation of

Wilson v. Richardson, Case. No. 5:11-cv-26-RS-GRJ, with the above-styled case would

conserve judicial resources and permit the efficient and expeditious resolution of

Plaintiff’s claims. Upon consolidation of the cases, the undersigned will enter an order

rescinding the fee order in Case. No. 5:11-cv-26-RS-GRJ.

Accordingly, it is respectfully RECOMMENDED that Wilson v. Richardson, Case.

No. 5:11-cv-26-RS-GRJ, be consolidated with the above-styled case for all further

Wright v. Dougherty County, Georgia, 358 F.3d 1352, 1356 (11th Cir. 2004). 1

Hendrix v. Raybestos-Manhattan, Inc., 776 F.2d 1492, 1495 (11th Cir. 1985)(citing Arnold v.

2

Eastern Air Lines, Inc., 681 F.2d 186, 193 (4th Cir. 1982) cert denied, 460 U.S. 1102 (1983)).

Case No: 5:11-cv-25-SPM-GRJ
Page 3 of 3

proceedings, and that all filings should be made in this case. 

IN CHAMBERS this 14 day of April 2011. 

th

s/Gary R. Jones 

GARY R. JONES

United States Magistrate Judge

NOTICE TO THE PARTIES

A party may file specific, written objections to the proposed findings and

recommendations within 14 days after being served with a copy of this report and

recommendation. A party may respond to another party’s objections within 14

days after being served with a copy thereof. Failure to file specific objections

limits the scope of review of proposed factual findings and recommendations.

Case No: 5:11-cv-25-SPM-GRJ