STEWART v. DIXON et al

Page 1 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
PANAMA CITY DIVISION
STEFAN STEWART,
Plaintiff,
v. Case No. 5:26-cv-27-TKW-MJF
RICKY DIXON, et al.,
Defendants.
/
ORDER
This case is before the Court based on the magistrate judge’s Report and
Recommendation (R&R) (Doc. 6) and Plaintiff’s objection (Doc. 7). The Court
reviewed the issues raised in the objection de novo under 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1) and
Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3), and based on that review, the Court agrees with the
magistrate judge’s determination that this case should be dismissed based on
Plaintiff’s failure to fully disclose his litigation history as required. See McNair v.
Johnson, 141 F.4th 1301, 1308 (11th Cir. 2025).
The Court did not overlook Plaintiff’s argument that he was not required to
list the omitted cases identified by the magistrate judge in the R&R because “they
were appeals that challenged Plaintiff’s conviction in state court not federal court as
Question C [on the complaint form] requires.” That argument is meritless because
Question C specifically asks whether the plaintiff has filed “any other … appeal in
Case 5:26-cv-00027-TKW-MJF Document 8 Filed 03/16/26 Page 1 of 2

Page 2 of 2
state or federal court … challenging your conviction ….” Doc. 1 at 14 (bold and
italics in original; underlining added). Thus, the omitted cases should have been
listed in response to Question C.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that:
1. The magistrate judge’s R&R is adopted and incorporated by reference
in this Order.
2. This case is DISMISSED without prejudice under the Court’s inherent
authority based on Plaintiff’s failure to fully disclose his litigation history.
3. The Clerk shall enter judgment in accordance with this Order and close
the case file.
DONE AND ORDERED this 16th day of March, 2026.
__________________________________
T. KENT WETHERELL, II
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 5:26-cv-00027-TKW-MJF Document 8 Filed 03/16/26 Page 2 of 2