United States District Court, S.D. Georgia, Augusta Division
J. RANDAL HALL, District Judge.
After a careful, de novo review of the file, the Court concurs with the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, to which objections have been filed (doc. no. 8). The Magistrate Judge recommended dismissal of this case because Plaintiff refused to comply with an order of the Court directing her to file an amended complaint. (See doc. no. 6.) The Magistrate Judge thoroughly and correctly explained to Plaintiff that her consent is not required for him to make rulings on non-dispositive matters in the case. Consistent with that explanation, the Magistrate Judge then made his recommendation to this Court on a dispositive matter, namely the dismissal of the case.
In response, Plaintiff filed a document with a six-line title which includes several variations on the words "motion" and "complain, " but which, in a nutshell, objects to the dismissal of her case. Plaintiff demands to know why her complaint has not been served on Defendants and complains, again, about the screening of her informa pauperis complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). She also accuses the Court of a variety of misdeeds, requests that all "orders against her" be vacated, and asks for a change of venue.
Nothing in Plaintiffs filing changes the Magistrate Judge's analysis that this case is due to be dismissed because Plaintiff has shown, repeatedly, that she has no intention of complying with the order to submit an amended complaint that satisfies the dictates of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8. Likewise, Plaintiff has not demonstrated she is entitled to any relief requested in her baseless motions interspersed with her objections to the requirement that she file an amended complaint. Thus, the Court DENIES her motions and OVERRULES her objections.
Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge as its opinion. Therefore, the Court DISMISSES this case without ...