BUTKO v. SAN DIEGO POLICE DEPARTMENT

Page 1 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
PENSACOLA DIVISION
JOEL BUTKO,
Plaintiff,
v. Case No. 3:26-cv-1466-TKW-ZCB
SAN DIEGO POLICE DEPARTMENT,
Defendant.
/
ORDER
This case is before the Court based on the magistrate judge’s Report and
Recommendation (Doc. 4) and Plaintiff’s objection (Doc. 6). 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). 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. See McNair v. Johnson, 141 F.4th 1301, 1308 (11th
Cir. 2025).
The Court did not overlook Plaintiff’s argument that his failure to fully
disclose his litigation history was “unknowing” because he did not realize that the
Case 3:26-cv-01466-TKW-ZCB Document 7 Filed 04/10/26 Page 1 of 2

Page 2 of 2
Court received the 2021 case that he did not disclose. That, however, is not an
excuse because Plaintiff obviously knew that he filed that case.1 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 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 10th day of April, 2026.
__________________________________
T. KENT WETHERELL, II
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
1 The Court did not overlook the assertion in the objection that “[p]revious inquiry to the
Clerk of Court around the time of filing did not reveal any case,” Doc. 6 at 2, but Plaintiff did not
provide any documentation of his communication with the Clerk to support that assertion.
Case 3:26-cv-01466-TKW-ZCB Document 7 Filed 04/10/26 Page 2 of 2