PHILISTIN v. BEUHLER et al

Page 1 of 20
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
PANAMA CITY DIVISION
JEFFNEY PHILISTIN, a.k.a,
JEFNEY PHILISTIN,
Plaintiff,
v. 	Case No. 5:25-cv-352-MW/MJF
ROSE MARY BEUHLER,
Defendant,
/
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Because Plaintiff violated the Local Rules by failing to disclose fully
and accurately his litigation history, the District Court should dismiss
this case without prejudice.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff is a Florida inmate currently confined at the Apalachee
Correctional Institution. Plaintiff’s inmate number is L42864.
Plaintiff initiated this civil action on December 5, 2025, and utilized
the 	court-approved 	form 	for 	use 	by 	non-prisoners. 	Doc. 	1. 	Because
Plaintiff violated the Local Rules by utilizing the wrong form for his
Case 5:25-cv-00352-MW-MJF Document 8 Filed 01/02/26 Page 1 of 20

Page 2 of 20
complaint, 	the 	undersigned 	ordered 	Plaintiff 	to 	file 	an 	amended
complaint 	on 	the 	court-approved 	form 	for 	prisoners. 	Doc. 	4. 	The
undersigned explained that the complaint form—including questions
about Plaintiff’s litigation history—must be completed in its entirety. Id.
at 2. The undersigned warned Plaintiff that the failure to disclose his
litigation history likely would result in dismissal of this civil action. Id.
Plaintiff’s first amended complaint names the Atlanta Regional
Commissioner of the Social Security Administration as a defendant.
Plaintiff states that during his criminal prosecution, Florida identified
Plaintiff by his name and social security number. Plaintiff asserts that
Florida officials misspelled his name. On April 4, 2023, he sent Defendant
a report asserting that the State of Florida had committed social security
fraud. Plaintiff states that Defendant, in her individual and official
capacity, 	failed 	to 	investigate 	or 	take 	any 	action 	with 	regards 	to
Plaintiff’s report of fraud.
Plaintiff purports to bring this civil action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983
for violations of his Fourth-, Fifth-, and Fourteenth-Amendment rights
and 	under 	section 	7 	of 	the 	“Privacy 	Rights 	Act” 	of 	1974. 	Because
Case 5:25-cv-00352-MW-MJF Document 8 Filed 01/02/26 Page 2 of 20

Page 3 of 20
Defendant is a federal employee and because Plaintiff is proceeding pro
se, the undesigned has construed Plaintiff’s claims as arising under
Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403
U.S. 388 (1971).
D ISCUSSION
A. 	Screening of Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint
“Although a pro se litigant’s filings are construed liberally, they
must comply with procedural rules.” McNair v. Johnson, 143 F.4th 1301,
1307 (11th Cir. 2025) (citations omitted). “A district court has discretion
to adopt local rules that are necessary to carry out the conduct of its
business.” Frazier v. Heebe, 482 U.S. 641, 645 (1987); see also 28 U.S.C. §
2071; Fed. R. Civ. P. 83(a). “[L]ocal rules generally reflect the courts’
traditional ‘authority to manage their own affairs so as to achieve the
orderly and expeditious disposition of cases.’” Reese v. Herbert, 527 F.3d
1253, 1267–68 (11th Cir. 2008) (quoting Hoffmann–La Roche, Inc. v.
Sperling, 493 U.S. 165, 172–73 (1989)).
Rule 5.7(A) of the Local Rules of the United States District Court of
the Northern District of Florida instructs a pro se prisoner bringing suit
Case 5:25-cv-00352-MW-MJF Document 8 Filed 01/02/26 Page 3 of 20

Page 4 of 20
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to use the court’s standardized civil-rights
complaint form:
A party not represented by an attorney must file any of
these only on a form available without charge from the Clerk
or on the District’s website: a petition for a writ of habeas
corpus, a motion for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, or a
complaint in a civil-rights case. A case is a civil-rights case if
it asserts a claim under the United States Constitution or a
statute creating individual rights, including, for example, 42
U.S.C. § 1983 or the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Court need
not—and ordinarily will not—consider a petition, motion, or
complaint that is not filed on the proper form.
N.D. Fla. Loc. R. 5.7(A).
The complaint form, in turn, instructs the inmate to disclose his
litigation 	history. 	In 	particular, 	under 	a 	heading 	titled 	“PRIOR
LITIGATION,” the form provides the following directive:
This section requires you to identify your prior
litigation history. Be advised that failure to disclose all
prior 	state 	and 	federal 	cases—including, 	but 	not
limited to civil cases, habeas cases, and appeals—may
result in the dismissal of this case. You should err on
the side of caution if you are uncertain whether a case
should be identified.
Compl. Form at 8. The form goes on to state that the inmate should
“[a]ttach additional pages as necessary to list all cases.” Id. at 12.
Case 5:25-cv-00352-MW-MJF Document 8 Filed 01/02/26 Page 4 of 20

Page 5 of 20
Separately, 	the 	form 	requires 	the 	inmate 	to 	provide 	the 	following
“CERTIFICATION”:
I 	declare, 	under penalty 	of 	perjury, 	that 	all of 	the
information stated above and included on or with this form,
including my litigation history, is true and correct.
Id.
Local Rule 41.1 describes the consequences of a litigant’s failure to
comply with the applicable court rules, and it expressly warns that
dismissal is a possible sanction:
If a party fails to comply with an applicable rule or a
court order, the Court may strike a pleading, dismiss a claim,
enter a default on a claim, take other appropriate action, or
issue an order to show cause why any of these actions should
not be taken.
N.D. Fla. R. 41.1.
In short, Plaintiff is required to complete the standardized civil-
rights 	complaint 	form 	and 	to 	complete 	the 	form 	according 	to 	its
instructions.
B. 	Plaintiff’s Responses to Questions on the Complaint Form
Plaintiff 	provided 	answers 	to 	Section 	VIII 	of 	the 	civil 	rights
complaint form which requires Plaintiff to disclose his litigation history.
Case 5:25-cv-00352-MW-MJF Document 8 Filed 01/02/26 Page 5 of 20

Page 6 of 20
The complaint form that Plaintiff utilized asks three questions:
A. Have you had any case in federal court, including federal
appellate 	court, 	dismissed 	as 	frivolous, 	as 	malicious, 	for
failure to state a claim, or prior to service?
B. Have you filed other lawsuits or appeals in 	state 	or
federal court dealing with the same facts or issue involved
in this case?
C. Have you filed any other lawsuit, habeas corpus petition,
or appeal in state or federal court either challenging your
conviction or relating to the conditions of your confinement?
Doc. 5 at 9–10. Additionally, the complaint form instructs that if the
answer is “yes” to any of these questions, then the plaintiff must disclose
all responsive cases. Id.
Plaintiff responded, “Yes” to each question. Id. 	He disclosed that
he had filed four cases with the Florida Supreme Court, two cases with
the Florida District Court of Appeals, and one with the Jackson County
Court. He also disclosed that he had filed the following federal cases:
• 	Philistin v. Backman, No. 14-cv-62569 (S.D. Fla.).
• 	Philistin v. Cantrell, No. 5:18-cv-166 (N.D. Fla.).
• 	Philistin v. Pryor, No. 0:25-cv-60089 (S.D. Fla.).
• 	Philistin v. Hicks, No.: 0:09-cv-60303 (S.D. Fla.).
Case 5:25-cv-00352-MW-MJF Document 8 Filed 01/02/26 Page 6 of 20

Page 7 of 20
At the end of the complaint form, Plaintiff signed his name after
certifying: “I declare, under penalty of perjury, that all of the information
stated above and included on or with this form, including my litigation
history, is true and correct.” Id. at 12–13. Thus, Plaintiff has in effect
stated that at the time he filed this lawsuit, he never filed any other case
in federal court.
C. 	Plaintiff’s Omissions
The undersigned takes judicial notice that at the time Plaintiff
filed his complaint in this case on August 16, 2025, Plaintiff had filed at
least four cases and one federal appeal that he was required to disclose
on the form.
On October 31, 2014, Plaintiff filed a civil-rights case pursuant to
42 U.S.C. § 1983 in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of New York against Beyoncé and Jay-Z. Philistin v. Carter, No.
14-cv-6476 	(E.D.N.Y.). 	On 	December 	10, 	2014, 	that 	district 	court
dismissed the case prior to service because Plaintiff failed to pay the filing
fee. Id., Order Dismissing Case, ECF No. 5. The docket in that case
reflects Plaintiff’s inmate number is L42864. Id., Complaint, ECF No. 1
Case 5:25-cv-00352-MW-MJF Document 8 Filed 01/02/26 Page 7 of 20

Page 8 of 20
at 5. This case was responsive to Question A on the complaint form as
the case was filed in federal court and dismissed prior to service.
On November 18, 2013, Plaintiff re-filed his civil-rights case against
Beyoncé and Jay-Z in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Florida. Philistin v. Carter, No. 14-CV-24373, (S.D. Fla.). On
February 2, 2015, that district court entered an amended order sua
sponte dismissing Plaintiff’s case prior to service because Plaintiff had
failed to state a plausible claim under section 1983. The docket in that
case reflects Plaintiff’s inmate number is L42864. Id., Complaint, ECF
No. 1 at 5. This case was responsive to Question A on the complaint form
as the case was filed in federal court, dismissed for failure to state a
plausible claim for relief, and dismissed prior to service.
On May 29, 2019, Plaintiff filed a civil rights action pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983 in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Texas against a nurse employed at the Fort Bend County Jail.
Philistin v. Emanuel, No. 4:19-cv-1976 (S.D. Tex.). Plaintiff alleged that
the relevant defendant failed to provide Plaintiff adequate medical care
while he was confined at the jail. The docket in that case reflects
Case 5:25-cv-00352-MW-MJF Document 8 Filed 01/02/26 Page 8 of 20

Page 9 of 20
Plaintiff’s inmate number is L42864. Id., Complaint, ECF No. 1 at 3. This
case was responsive to Question C on the complaint form as the case was
filed in federal court and challenged the conditions of his confinement.
On January 22, 2025, Plaintiff filed a “notice of removal” of his state
habeas petitions in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Florida. 	Philistin v. Prior, No. 0:25-cv-60129 (S.D. Fla.).
Plaintiff 	subsequently 	filed 	two 	amended 	complaints. 	Id., 	Amended
Complaint, ECF No. 4; Id., Second Amended Complaint, ECF No. 10.
Plaintiff sought to challenge his conviction based on the fact that the
State improperly spelled Plaintiff’s Chistian name in the information and
improperly 	identified 	him 	by 	disclosing his 	social 	security number.
Because a plaintiff may not remove a civil action from state court to
federal court, the relevant district court dismissed the notice of removal
as improper, dismissed the first amended complaint as duplicative, and
dismissed the second amended complaint as a successive habeas petition.
Id., Order of Dismissal, ECF No. 13 at 1–2. On March 17, 2025, Plaintiff
filed a notice of appeal. Id., Notice of Appeal ECF No. 15. On October 16,
2025, the Eleventh Circuit dismissed the appeal. Philistin v. Pryor, No.
Case 5:25-cv-00352-MW-MJF Document 8 Filed 01/02/26 Page 9 of 20

Page 10 of 20
25-10879 (11th Cir.). This case and appeal are attributable to Plaintiff
because the docket bears his inmate number. Additionally, they are
responsive to Question C of the complaint form as these were filed to
challenge his conviction.
By failing to disclose these prior cases and multiple others, Plaintiff
violated the complaint form’s explicit instructions and Plaintiff’s duty of
candor to the District Court. See Kendrick v. Sec’y, Fla. Dep’t of Corr., No.
21-12686, 2022 WL 2388425, at *3 (11th Cir. July 1, 2022) (noting that
pro se litigants “owe the same duty of candor to the court as imposed on
any other litigant”).
D. 	The Materiality of Plaintiff’s Omissions
Courts have recognized that information regarding a plaintiff’s
litigation history is useful to federal courts:
[I]t 	allows 	efficient 	consideration 	of 	whether 	the
prisoner is entitled to pursue the current action under the
“three strikes” provision of the [PLRA]; it allows consideration
of whether the action is related to, or otherwise should be
considered in conjunction with or by the same judge who
presided 	over, 	another 	action; 	it 	allows 	consideration 	of
whether any ruling in the other action affects the prisoner’s
current case. All of these things are appropriately considered
in connection with the preliminary review of such a complaint
under the [PLRA].
Case 5:25-cv-00352-MW-MJF Document 8 Filed 01/02/26 Page 10 of 20

Page 11 of 20
Spires v. Taylor, No. 3:00-cv-249-RH, Order of Dismissal, Doc. 10 (N.D.
Fla. 	Oct. 	27, 	2000). 	Also, 	this 	“information 	may 	assist 	a 	court 	in
identifying suits that are repetitious of prior or pending lawsuits and
hence frivolous.” In re Epps, 888 F.2d 964, 969 (2d Cir. 1989); see Bilal v.
Driver, 251 F.3d 1346, 1350 (11th Cir. 2001) (noting that, in assessing
frivolousness, 	courts 	may 	consider 	“a 	litigant’s 	history 	of 	bringing
unmeritorious 	litigation”). 	Additionally, 	because 	prisoner-plaintiffs
generally proceed pro se, information regarding a plaintiff’s litigation
history assists district courts in determining the plaintiff’s experience
and familiarity with the legal terrain.
“Federal courts have both the inherent power and the constitutional
obligation to protect their jurisdiction from conduct which impairs their
ability to carry out Article III functions.” Procup v. Strickland, 792 F.2d
1069, 1073 (11th Cir. 1986) (per curiam); In re Martin-Trigona, 737 F.2d
1254, 1261–62 (2d Cir. 1984). Courts also have “a responsibility to
prevent single litigants from unnecessarily encroaching on the judicial
machinery needed by others.” 	Procup, 792 F.2d at 1074. Requiring
prisoner-plaintiffs to divulge their record of litigation serves all these
Case 5:25-cv-00352-MW-MJF Document 8 Filed 01/02/26 Page 11 of 20

Page 12 of 20
compelling interests. Thus, to conserve judicial resources and effectively
manage their dockets, courts may require prisoner-plaintiffs to disclose
their litigation history. See Smith v. Psychiatric Sols., Inc., 750 F.3d
1253, 	1262 	(11th 	Cir. 	2014) 	(noting 	that 	district 	courts 	have
“unquestionable authority to control their own dockets; this authority
includes broad discretion in deciding how best to manage the cases before
them”).
The time that district courts are required to expend to verify the
cases a plaintiff has filed but failed to identify can be considerable. This
is especially true in this case where a plaintiff has filed cases in other
jurisdictions and under additional inmate numbers. When courts cannot
rely on the statements or responses made by parties, the quality of justice
is threatened. Courts, therefore, cannot tolerate false or misleading
responses in pleadings or motions.
Here, as detailed above, Plaintiff falsely responded to a question on
the complaint form and violated the Local Rules by failing to disclose his
full litigation history as required by the complaint form. Plaintiff knew
from reading the complaint form that he was required to disclose all prior
Case 5:25-cv-00352-MW-MJF Document 8 Filed 01/02/26 Page 12 of 20

Page 13 of 20
federal cases that had been dismissed prior to service or that challenged
the conditions of his confinement. See Doc. 5 at 8–10. Plaintiff also knew
that the penalty for failing to disclose his federal litigation history was
dismissal. Id. at 8; N.D. Fla. Loc. R. 41.1 (warning that the failure to
follow an applicable rule is a ground for “dismiss[al] [of] a claim.”).
In addition to the warnings on the complaint form, the undersigned
explicitly warned Plaintiff, by separate order, that he “must answer each
question 	on 	the 	complaint 	form, 	including 	the 	questions 	regarding
Plaintiff’s prior litigation, both honestly and completely.” Doc. 4 at 1. The
undersigned also warned Plaintiff that the failure to disclose all prior
federal litigation likely would “result in dismissal of this civil action.” Id.
There is no excuse for Plaintiff’s failure to respond truthfully to the
questions on the complaint form. The questions are straightforward and
easily understandable. See Kendrick, 2022 WL 2388425, at *3 (noting
that the questions on the court-form are not complicated and a plaintiff’s
pro se 	status was not an excuse for failing to honestly answer the
straightforward questions). Plaintiff is in a superior position to know
whether he filed cases and if so, in which courts he had filed those cases.
Case 5:25-cv-00352-MW-MJF Document 8 Filed 01/02/26 Page 13 of 20

Page 14 of 20
It is Plaintiff’s responsibility to ensure that he has a list of his litigation
history, including any cases—like Philistin v. Carter, No. 14-CV-24373,
(S.D. Fla.)—that were dismissed for a reason that constitutes a “strike”
under 1915(g). Washington v. Dyas, 5:22-CV-285-TKW-MJF, 2023 WL
359508, at *1 (N.D. Fla. Jan. 23, 2023). If he did not have the information,
he could (and should) have requested it from the appropriate clerks’
offices before filing a new case. Id.; see Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b)(3) (By signing
and presenting a pleading to the court, an “unrepresented party certifies
that to the best of the person’s knowledge, information, and belief, formed
after 	an 	inquiry reasonable under the circumstances . . . 	the 	factual
contention have evidentiary support.”) (emphasis added).
Furthermore, a claim that Plaintiff could not remember these cases
would strain credulity. In the month prior to Plaintiff commencing this
civil action, Plaintiff filed at least nine documents total in both his
district court case Philistin v. Prior, No. 0:25-cv-60129 and his appeal
Philistin v. Pryor, No. 25-10879. He, therefore, certainly knew of these
cases and the relevant information that needed to be disclosed.
Case 5:25-cv-00352-MW-MJF Document 8 Filed 01/02/26 Page 14 of 20

Page 15 of 20
The District Court, therefore, should not allow Plaintiff’s false
responses to 	go unpunished. 	A 	penalty is warranted 	both 	to 	deter
Plaintiff 	from 	such 	conduct 	and 	to 	deter 	others 	from 	similar
misrepresentations and omissions. See Strickland v. United States, 739
F. App’x 587, 588 (11th Cir. 2018) (“A sanction less than dismissal would
signal 	that 	a 	failure 	to 	disclose 	filings 	is 	an 	infraction 	without
consequence. It would invite other prisoners to omit their litigation
history, thus draining the judicial system’s time and resources.”). If
Plaintiff suffered no penalty for his untruthful response, there would be
little or no disincentive for Plaintiff’s attempt to evade or undermine the
purpose of the form.
E. 	The Appropriate Sanction Is Dismissal Without Prejudice
When a complaint form requires a plaintiff to list his litigation
history, and the plaintiff’s statements are made under penalty of perjury,
a 	plaintiff’s 	affirmative 	misrepresentation 	regarding 	his 	litigation
history warrants dismissal of the case under the district court’s inherent
authority 	to 	manage 	its 	docket 	and 	enforce 	applicable 	local 	rules.
McNair, 	143 	F. 	4th 	at 	1308 	(“Dismissal 	without 	prejudice 	was 	an
Case 5:25-cv-00352-MW-MJF Document 8 Filed 01/02/26 Page 15 of 20

Page 16 of 20
appropriate exercise of the district court’s inherent authority to manage
its docket and enforce the local rules. [Plaintiff] violated the local rules
by failing to disclose his full litigation history, as required by the duly
adopted standard complaint form.”); see also Sears v. Haas, 509 F. App’x
935, 936 (11th Cir. 2013).
An appropriate sanction for Plaintiff’s violation of the Local Rules
by failing to comply with the complaint form’s explicit instructions is to
dismiss this case without prejudice. McNair, 143 F.4th at 1308.
Because Plaintiff alleges that the events giving rise to his claim
occurred after April 4, 2023, Florida’s four-year statute of limitations
likely would not preclude Plaintiff from refiling a Bivens action. See
Moore v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, 553 F. App’x 888, 890 (11th Cir. 2014)
(“Bivens suits have the same statute of limitations as suits brought under
42 U.S.C. § 1983. And where Florida is the forum state, § 1983 plaintiffs
have four years to file suit.”).
The statute of limitation for a claim under section 7 of the Privacy
Act is two-years. Bils v. Tucson Police Dep’t, 229 F.3d 1156 (9th Cir. 2000)
(table); 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(5). It is unclear whether dismissal without
Case 5:25-cv-00352-MW-MJF Document 8 Filed 01/02/26 Page 16 of 20

Page 17 of 20
prejudice would effectively bar Plaintiff from bringing this claim in the
near future because Plaintiff provides no facts to support such a claim.1
Nevertheless, 	dismissal 	without 	prejudice 	remains 	an 	appropriate
sanction.
Although Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, Plaintiff is an experienced
litigator in federal court and has filed at least sixteen federal cases and
appeals. 	As 	detailed 	above, 	the 	complaint 	form 	was 	easily
understandable. Additionally, the complaint form and the undersigned’s
order to amend the complaint explained that all prior cases must be
disclosed. The complaint form and the undersigned also provided a clear
warning 	of 	the 	consequences 	for 	failing 	to 	disclose 	all 	prior 	cases.
Plaintiff, however, only disclosed four of those cases in his complaint
1 “Section 7 of the Privacy Act bars federal, state, or local agencies from
denying any individual any right, benefit, or privilege provided by law
because of such individual’s refusal to disclose his social security account
number to the agency.” Hollis v. W. Acad. Charter, Inc., 782 F. App’x 951,
956 (11th Cir. 2019). Plaintiff does not allege that he was denied any
right, benefit, or privilege provided by law as a result of his refusal to
provide his social security account number to Defendant. Thus, this claim
also can be dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) for failure to state a
plausible claim for relief. Hollis, 782 F. App’x at 958.
Case 5:25-cv-00352-MW-MJF Document 8 Filed 01/02/26 Page 17 of 20

Page 18 of 20
despite actively litigating two of those cases. He also failed to disclose
that he had incurred a strike under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). These facts—
and others—support the finding that Plaintiff’s failure to disclose these
cases was not a mere mistake, but rather willful misconduct.
F. 	No lesser Sanction Would Suffice
A sanction less than dismissal would not deter Plaintiff’s conduct.
For example, providing Plaintiff an opportunity to amend his complaint
to disclose the previous lawsuit would equate to overlooking his abuse of
the judicial process, because that course of action would entail no penalty.
See Young v. Sec’y for Dep’t of Corr., 380 F. App’x 939, 940–41 (11th Cir.
2010) (district court did not abuse its discretion by denying leave to
amend the complaint so that the plaintiff could disclose lawsuits that
should have been disclosed initially); Harris v. Warden, 498 F. App’x 962,
964–65 (11th Cir. 2012) (rejecting prisoner’s argument that it was an
abuse of discretion to dismiss case without allowing him “to correct” his
omissions by disclosing his litigation history; record showed that prisoner
“affirmatively misrepresented the facts” by failing to disclose prior cases
and that he “knew, or from reading the Complaint form should have
Case 5:25-cv-00352-MW-MJF Document 8 Filed 01/02/26 Page 18 of 20

Page 19 of 20
known, that disclosure of the relevant prior actions was required”); Hood
v. Tompkins, 197 F. App’x 818, 819 (11th Cir. 2006) (“[T]he district court
was correct to conclude that to allow [the plaintiff] to then acknowledge
what he should have disclosed earlier would serve to overlook his abuse
of the judicial process.”).
CONCLUSION
For 	the 	reasons 	set 	forth 	above, 	the 	undersigned 	respectfully
RECOMMENDS that the District Court:
1. 	DISMISS this case without prejudice for Plaintiff’s failure to
comply with the Local Rules for the Northern District of Florida.
2. 	DIRECT the clerk of the court to enter judgment accordingly
and close this case file.
At Pensacola, Florida, this 2nd day of January 2026.
/s/ Michael J. Frank
Michael J. Frank
United States Magistrate Judge
NOTICE TO THE PARTIES
The District Court referred this case to a magistrate
judge to make recommendations regarding dispositive
matters. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), (C). Objections to
these proposed findings and recommendations must be
Case 5:25-cv-00352-MW-MJF Document 8 Filed 01/02/26 Page 19 of 20

Page 20 of 20
filed within fourteen days of the date of the report and
recommendation. 	Any 	different 	deadline 	that 	may
appear 	on 	the 	electronic 	docket 	is 	for 	the 	court’s
internal use only. A party must serve a copy of any
objections on all other parties. A party who fails to
object to this report and recommendation waives the
right to challenge on appeal the District Court’s order
based on unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions.
See 11th Cir. R. 3-1; 28 U.S.C. § 636. The parties also are
advised 	that 	if 	they 	dispute 	the 	accuracy 	of 	any
judicially-noticed fact, or if they otherwise wish to be
heard on the propriety of the District Court taking
judicial notice of that fact, they must raise this issue in
an objection to this report and recommendation.
Case 5:25-cv-00352-MW-MJF Document 8 Filed 01/02/26 Page 20 of 20