SMITH v. COMERFORD

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
PANAMA CITY DIVISION
CORNELL SMITH,
Plaintiff,
v. 	Case No.: 5:25cv55-MW/MJF
RICHARD COMERFORD,
Defendant.
_________________________/
ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
This Court has considered, without hearing, the Magistrate Judge's Report and
Recommendation, ECF No. 55, and has also reviewed 	de novo 	Defendant’s
objections, ECF No. 56. Notwithstanding Defendant’s continued objection on the
exhaustion issue for Plaintiff’s RLUIPA claim, this Court agrees with the Magistrate
Judge that Plaintiff’s request for an exemption from FDOC’s grooming policy does
not amount to a request to adopt, amend, or repeal any rule, and thus, Plaintiff is not
required 	to 	file 	a 	Petition 	to 	Initiate 	Rulemaking 	to 	properly 	exhaust 	his
administrative remedies to pursue his RLUIPA claim.
Although Defendant attempts to distinguish this case from Judge Winsor’s
case in Yo’Seph v. Dixon, 1:24cv137-AW/ZCB, on the basis that the plaintiff in
Judge 	Winsor’s 	case 	requested 	an 	“exclusion” 	rather 	than 	an 	“exemption,”
Defendant says nothing about Davis v. Dixon, another decision from this District in
Case 5:25-cv-00055-MW-MJF Document 57 Filed 10/07/26 Page 1 of 2

2
which Judge Rodgers adopted the Magistrate Judge’s report and recommendation
rejecting 	Defendant’s 	same 	arguments 	where 	the 	plaintiff 	was 	seeking 	an
“exemption” of the challenged grooming policy, as Plaintiff does here. See Davis v.
Dixon, Case No.: 1:24cv145-MCR/HTC, 2025 WL 1214237 at *1 (N.D. Fla. Feb. 6,
2025) (“Davis’s request for an exemption to the grooming rule does not equate to a
demand that the FDOC amend its rules and, thus, the PIRM requirement does not
apply to Davis.”). This Court is further persuaded by Magistrate Judge Cannon’s
well-reasoned analysis, adopted without change by Judge Rodgers, in the Davis case.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED:
The report and recommendation, ECF No. 55, is accepted and adopted, over
the Defendant’s objections, as this Court’s opinion. Defendant’s motion to dismiss,
ECF No. 37, is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Plaintiff’s First and
Fourteenth Amendment claims are DISMISSED for failure to state a claim for
which relief can be granted. However, Plaintiff’s RLUIPA claim may proceed
insofar as this Court rejects Defendant’s argument that Plaintiff has failed to exhaust
administrative remedies. This case is referred back to the Magistrate Judge for
further proceedings consistent with this Order.
SO ORDERED on October 7, 2026.
s/Mark E. Walker 	____
United States District Judge
Case 5:25-cv-00055-MW-MJF Document 57 Filed 10/07/26 Page 2 of 2