DREW v. SMITH et al

Page 1 of 6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TALLAHASSEE DIVISION
CHARLIE LEE DREW,
Plaintiff,
vs. 	Case No. 4:26cv103-MW-MAF
A.J. SMITH,
and FRANKLIN COUNTY,
Defendants.
___________________________/
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, was granted leave to proceed in forma
pauperis, ECF No. 7, and directed to filed a second amended complaint,
ECF No. 8. Plaintiff then filed another in forma pauperis motion, ECF No.
10, which was denied as moot, ECF No. 11, although still missing was
Plaintiff’s signed Prisoner Consent Form. Plaintiff has now filed that form,
ECF No. 13, as required. He also filed another motion for in forma
pauperis status, ECF No. 15, which is again denied as moot.
In addition, Plaintiff was directed to file a third amended complaint.
ECF No. 11. Plaintiff did so on April 13, 2026, ECF No. 12, followed by a
Case 4:26-cv-00103-MW-MAF Document 18 Filed 04/23/26 Page 1 of 6

Page 2 of 6
fourth amended complaint, ECF No. 14, on April 14th, and a fifth amended
complaint, ECF No. 17, on April 22, 2026. Because an amended complaint
completely replaces an earlier version of a complaint, only Plaintiff’s fifth
amended civil rights complaint has been reviewed.
The fifth amended complaint, ECF No. 17, does not correct the
deficiencies previously identified to Plaintiff. 	See ECF No. 8 at 1-2, and
ECF No. 11 at 2-3. Plaintiff has once again failed to provide factual
allegations to support his claims.
For example, Plaintiff has not provided factual allegations which
support or explain the basis for his claims. ECF No. 17 at 6. Instead,
Plaintiff has made conclusory assertions such as - “due process of law 5th
[Amendment].” 	Id. 	Plaintiff also asserted, “Each defendant violated the
above right” and “[e]ach defendant failed to let Plaintiff out of [custody]
when they each knew Plaintiff should not have been in [custody].” 	Id.
Those are the identical allegations Plaintiff previously provided, see ECF
No. 9 at 6, which he was told were insufficient. ECF No. 11. To be clear,
those are conclusory assertions which fail to state a claim because those
brief and vague statements fail to demonstrate how, when, where, or why
his due process rights were violated.
Case No. 4:26cv103-MW-MAF
Case 4:26-cv-00103-MW-MAF Document 18 Filed 04/23/26 Page 2 of 6

Page 3 of 6
A claim must be supported by facts which provide the basis for the
asserted violation. The facts need not be lengthy; indeed Rule 8 states
only that there must be “a short and plain statement of the claim showing
that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Plaintiff’s
claims do not provide suffice notice to the Defendants of the facts which
support his claims.
In addition, Plaintiff asserts he has been “kept in custody for a period
of 10 months without justification.” ECF No. 17 at 6. That is similar to his
assertion earlier that he has been “kept in custody for no legal reason” for
ten months. 	See ECF No. 9 at 6. Again, no facts have been alleged which
demonstrate how or why the Sheriff (or Franklin County) is responsible for
Plaintiff’s detention.
As explained to Plaintiff in the prior Order, the reality is that the
Sheriff is required to detain a person who has been arrested until a state
court order permits release and, if applicable, bond is posted. The Court
takes judicial notice that in case number 250000244FRAXMX, 1 bond was
set for Plaintiff (the state court defendant) in the amount of $3,500.00 at his
1 Plaintiff was charged with possession of a controlled substance and possession of
drug paraphernalia.
Case No. 4:26cv103-MW-MAF
Case 4:26-cv-00103-MW-MAF Document 18 Filed 04/23/26 Page 3 of 6

Page 4 of 6
First Appearance on October 13, 2025. ECF No. 15 of that case.
Additionally, bond was also set in case number 25000245CFAXMX in the
amount of $2,500.00. ECF No. 13 of that case. Judicial notice is further
taken that Plaintiff is also facing criminal charges for driving while license
suspended or revoked and not having a motorcycle endorsement in case
number 25-139CT. An Order was entered on October 13, 2025, revoking
Plaintiff’s pretrial release in that case based on the court’s finding of
probable cause that Plaintiff (“the Defendant”) “committed a new crime
while on pretrial release in the instant case.” (ECF No. 26 of that case).
As Plaintiff was informed in the prior Order, if Plaintiff contends he is
entitled to release, “he must demonstrate that he has posted bond and
otherwise explain his claim that he is held unlawfully in the Franklin County
Jail.” ECF No. 11. Plaintiff has not done so. Plaintiff has not shown that
he posted bond. Indeed, Plaintiff failed to address that issue at all.
Instead, Plaintiff has continued to make the same conclusory and
unsupported assertion that he was previously informed was insufficient.
This Court’s prior Order advised Plaintiff that he would be provided
one “final opportunity . . . to file a viable complaint.” ECF No. 11. Because
Plaintiff has been given several opportunities to file a proper complaint, it
Case No. 4:26cv103-MW-MAF
Case 4:26-cv-00103-MW-MAF Document 18 Filed 04/23/26 Page 4 of 6

Page 5 of 6
does not appear that further chances would be beneficial. This case
should be dismissed for failure to state a claim.
RECOMMENDATION
It is respectfully RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s fifth amended
complaint, ECF No. 17, be DISMISSED for failure to state a claim upon
which relief may be granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), that all
pending motions be DENIED as moot, and that the Order adopting this
Report and Recommendation direct the Clerk of Court to note on the
docket that this cause was dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).
IN CHAMBERS at Tallahassee, Florida, on April 23, 2026.
S/ 	Charles A. Stampelos2
CHARLES A. STAMPELOS
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
2 Magistrate Judge Stampelos has signed this Order during the temporary absence
of Magistrate Judge Martin A. Fitzpatrick who was assigned to this case.
Case No. 4:26cv103-MW-MAF
Case 4:26-cv-00103-MW-MAF Document 18 Filed 04/23/26 Page 5 of 6

Page 6 of 6
NOTICE TO THE PARTIES
Within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy of this
Report and Recommendation, a party may serve and file specific written
objections to these proposed findings and recommendations. 	Fed. R.
Civ. P. 72(b)(2). A copy of the objections shall be served upon all other
parties. 	A party may respond to another party’s objections within
fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy thereof. Fed. R. Civ.
P. 72(b)(2). 	Any different deadline that may appear on the electronic
docket is for the Court’s internal use only and does not control. 	If a
party 	fails 	to 	object 	to 	the 	Magistrate 	Judge’s 	findings 	or
recommendations as to any particular claim or issue contained in this
Report and Recommendation, that party waives the right to challenge on
appeal the District Court’s order based on the unobjected-to factual and
legal conclusions. 	See 11th Cir. Rule 3-1; 28 U.S.C. § 636.
Case No. 4:26cv103-MW-MAF
Case 4:26-cv-00103-MW-MAF Document 18 Filed 04/23/26 Page 6 of 6