MCREYNOLDS v. COURTOT et al

Page 1 of 20
UUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
GAINESVILLE DIVISION
BLAKE AUSTIN
MCREYNOLDS,
Plaintiff,
v. 	Case No. 1:23-cv-212-AW-MJF
D. COURTOT, et al.,
Defendants.
/
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
In this civil rights action, Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se,
sues employees of the Florida Department of Corrections and alleges that
Defendants violated his constitutional rights. Doc. 30. Defendant Courtot
has moved to dismiss this civil action because Plaintiff failed to comply
with the Local Rules when he failed to disclose his litigation history. Doc.
51 at 23–26. The undesigned provided Plaintiff multiple opportunities to
respond to the motion to dismiss, to no avail. Docs. 53, 58, 60, 65, 68.
Because Plaintiff failed to comply with the applicable Local Rules, failed
to disclose his litigation history, and failed to comply with court orders,
Case 1:23-cv-00212-AW-MJF Document 72 Filed 12/15/25 Page 1 of 20

Page 2 of 20
the District Court should grant Courtot’s motion to dismiss and dismiss
this civil action.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff is a Florida prisoner housed at Graceville Correctional
Facility. Plaintiff’s Florida Department of Corrections inmate number is
J42700.
A. 	Plaintiff’s Original Complaint
On August 18, 2023, Plaintiff initiated this civil action by filing a
complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Doc. 1. In his original complaint,
Plaintiff responded affirmatively to questions regarding his litigation
history and identified three State cases in which Plaintiff challenged his
conviction. Doc. 1 at 14.
B. 	The Undersigned’s First Order to Amend the Complaint
On 	September 	28, 	2023, 	the 	undersigned 	struck 	Plaintiff’s
complaint—because it violated Rule 8 and Rule 10 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure—instructed Plaintiff to correct the pleading defects,
and 	provided 	Plaintiff 	until 	October 	30, 	2023, 	to 	file 	an 	amended
complaint. Doc.
Case 1:23-cv-00212-AW-MJF Document 72 Filed 12/15/25 Page 2 of 20

Page 3 of 20
C. 	Plaintiff Files an Unrelated Complaint
On October 16, 2023, Plaintiff filed a “Complaint for Violations of
Civil Rights.” Doc. 13. Plaintiff did not utilize the court-approved form
and Plaintiff did not label this complaint as an “amended complaint.” In
this complaint, Plaintiff named two new Defendants and asserted claims
unrelated to those in his initial complaint.
The clerk of the court filed this “amended complaint” in this case
and labeled the complaint as Plaintiff’s “First Amended Complaint.” The
undersigned, therefore, struck this complaint. Doc. 15.
D. 	Plaintiff Files a “First Amended Complaint”
On November 3, 2023, Plaintiff untimely filed his “First Amended
Complaint.” Doc. 14. Plaintiff utilized the court-approved form, included
the words “First Amended Complaint,” and addressed the same claims
that were contained in Plaintiff’s initial complaint.
The complaint form Plaintiff utilized required Plaintiff to disclose
his litigation history under the penalty of perjury. Plaintiff, however, did
not respond to any question regarding his litigation history.
Case 1:23-cv-00212-AW-MJF Document 72 Filed 12/15/25 Page 3 of 20

Page 4 of 20
E. 	The Undersigned’s Second Order to Amend the Complaint
Because Plaintiff failed to disclose his litigation history in his “First
Amended Complaint,” the undersigned ordered Plaintiff to file a second
amended complaint that included his litigation history. Specifically, the
undersigned instructed:
If Plaintiff desires to proceed with this action, he must
file 	a 	second 	amended 	complaint 	on 	the 	court
approved form . . . . Plaintiff is required to answer each
question 	on 	the 	complaint 	form—including 	those
regarding 	Plaintiff’s 	litigation 	history—completely
and honestly. The failure to do so likely will result in
dismissal of this action.
Id. at 6.
F. 	Plaintiff Files Another “First Amended Complaint”
On January 25, 2024, Plaintiff filed another complaint that he
labeled as his “First Amended Complaint.” Doc. 22. In that complaint,
Plaintiff disclosed that he previously had filed thirteen cases in state
courts. Id. at 10.
G. 	The Undersigned’s Third Order to Amend the Complaint
Because Plaintiff’s “First Amended Complaint—Doc. 22—violated
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and failed to state a plausible claim
Case 1:23-cv-00212-AW-MJF Document 72 Filed 12/15/25 Page 4 of 20

Page 5 of 20
upon which relief could be granted, on April 8, 2024, the undersigned
ordered Plaintiff to file an amended complaint that complied with the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Doc. 23.
H. 	Plaintiff Files his “Second Amended Complaint”
On May 16, 2024, Plaintiff filed his “Second Amended Complaint.”
Doc. 26. Plaintiff again did not respond to questions regarding his
litigation history. Plaintiff also failed to state a claim upon which relief
could be granted.
I. 	The Undersigned’s Fourth Order to Amend the Complaint
Because Plaintiff’s “Second Amended Complaint” was incomplete
and Plaintiff failed to state a claim for relief, the undersigned again
ordered Plaintiff to amend his complaint. Doc. 27.
J. 	Plaintiff Files his “Third Amended Complaint”
On July 17, 2024, Plaintiff filed his “Third Amended Complaint.”
Doc. 28. This complaint form required Plaintiff to disclose his litigation
history under the penalty of perjury. In response to the questions about
Plaintiff’s litigation history, Plaintiff disclosed that he had filed only four
cases in state courts.
Case 1:23-cv-00212-AW-MJF Document 72 Filed 12/15/25 Page 5 of 20

Page 6 of 20
K. 	The Undersigned’s Fifth Order to Amend the Complaint
Because Plaintiff’s “Third Amended Complaint” failed to state a
plausible 	claim 	against 	Defendant 	Lyles, 	the 	undersigned 	ordered
plaintiff to file an amended complaint that corrected this defect or
omitted Lyles as a Defendant. Doc. 29.
L. 	Plaintiff’s Files his Fourth Amended Complaint
On 	September 	12, 	2024, 	Plaintiff 	filed 	his 	“Fourth 	Amended
Complaint, Doc. 30, which is the operative pleading. In his “Fourth
Amended Complaint,” Plaintiff names four Defendants: Courtot, Lyles,
Jane Doe 1, and Jane Doe 2.1 Doc. 30. Plaintiff’s claims arise from a use-
of-force incident that occurred on June 1, 2023, and an alleged denial of
medical treatment. Plaintiff asserts the following claims:
• 	First 	Amendment—Retaliation 	against 	Courtot 	and 	Jane
Does 1 and 2;
• 	Eighth Amendment—Excessive Force against Courtot; and
1 On July 21, 2025, the District Court dismissed Plaintiff’s claims against
Lyles because Lyles is deceased, and Plaintiff had not timely filed a
motion to substitute under Rule 25. Docs. 54, 57. Regarding the two “Jane
Doe” Defendants, Plaintiff has failed to effect service of process.
Case 1:23-cv-00212-AW-MJF Document 72 Filed 12/15/25 Page 6 of 20

Page 7 of 20
• 	Eighth 	Amendment—Deliberate 	Indifference 	to 	a 	Serious
Medical Need against Jane Does 1 and 2.
Doc. 30 at 13–15. Plaintiff seeks $250,000.00. Id. at 11.
D ISCUSSION
A. 	The Local Rules
“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 asserting a
Case 1:23-cv-00212-AW-MJF Document 72 Filed 12/15/25 Page 7 of 20

Page 8 of 20
claim 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-plaintiff 	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 1:23-cv-00212-AW-MJF Document 72 Filed 12/15/25 Page 8 of 20

Page 9 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 was 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 required Plaintiff to disclose his litigation history.
Case 1:23-cv-00212-AW-MJF Document 72 Filed 12/15/25 Page 9 of 20

Page 10 of 20
Doc. 30 at 16–18. The complaint form 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?
Id. 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. at 19.
Plaintiff responded, “No” to question VIII(A) and (B). He did not
disclose any cases. Plaintiff responded, “Yes” to question VIII(C) of the
complaint form, and disclosed the following state cases:
• 	Florida v. McReynolds, Case No. 14-CF-1886;
• 	McReynolds v. Dixon, Case No. 23-CA-02877 (filed on Aug. 6,
2023);
• 	McReynolds v. Florida, Case No. 23-1926; and
• 	McReynolds v. Florida, Case No. 23-2085.
Case 1:23-cv-00212-AW-MJF Document 72 Filed 12/15/25 Page 10 of 20

Page 11 of 20
Id. at 18.
At the end of the civil rights 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 19–20. Thus, Plaintiff has in
effect stated that at the time he filed this lawsuit, he had not filed any
other case in state court any “other lawsuit, habeas corpus petition, or
appeal” that challenged his conviction.
C. 	Plaintiff’s Omissions
The undersigned takes judicial notice that at the time Plaintiff
filed his complaint in this case on August 18, 2023, Plaintiff had filed at
least two state appeals that challenged his conviction and were required
to be disclosed on the form.
On 	June 	16, 	2015, 	Plaintiff 	filed 	an 	appeal 	challenging 	his
conviction in the Florida Fifth District Court of Appeals. McReynolds v.
State, 	2015 WL 14107831, at *2. On February 16, 2016, that court
affirmed Plaintiff’s conviction. McReynolds v. State, No. 5D15-2137, 2016
WL 685158 (Feb. 16, 2016).
Case 1:23-cv-00212-AW-MJF Document 72 Filed 12/15/25 Page 11 of 20

Page 12 of 20
On March 9, 2018, Plaintiff filed a pro se Rule 3.850 motion for
postconviction 	relief, 	which 	was 	denied 	on 	February 	13, 	2019.
Afterwards, Plaintiff appealed the decision in case 5D20-0110, but then
voluntarily dismissed the appeal on November 12, 2020.
These appeals were responsive to Question VIII(C) of the complaint
form because Plaintiff sought to challenge his conviction.
Because Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the undersigned reviewed
each iteration of Plaintiff’s complaint to determine whether Plaintiff had
ever fully disclosed these two appeals. Plaintiff did not. Doc. 1 at 14; Doc.
14 at 14–15; Doc. 22 at 10; Doc. 26 at 10–11; Doc. 28 at 15. Furthermore,
the undersigned offered Plaintiff an opportunity to explain his failure to
honestly disclose his prior litigation. Plaintiff elected not to do so.
By failing to disclose at least two cases multiple times, 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”).
Case 1:23-cv-00212-AW-MJF Document 72 Filed 12/15/25 Page 12 of 20

Page 13 of 20
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].
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.
Case 1:23-cv-00212-AW-MJF Document 72 Filed 12/15/25 Page 13 of 20

Page 14 of 20
“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
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
Case 1:23-cv-00212-AW-MJF Document 72 Filed 12/15/25 Page 14 of 20

Page 15 of 20
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
federal cases that were dismissed as frivolous. See Doc. 30 at 9; cf. Doc. 1
at 8; Doc. 14 at 12; Doc. 26 at 8; Doc. 28 at 12. Plaintiff also knew that
the penalty for failing to disclose his federal litigation history was
dismissal. Doc. 30 at 9; cf. Doc. 1 at 8; Doc. 14 at 12; Doc. 26 at 8; Doc. 28
at 12; see also 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 informed Plaintiff that
[t]he 	questions 	regarding 	litigation 	history 	serve 	an
important 	purpose. 	They 	allow 	“efficient 	consideration 	of
whether the prisoner is entitled to pursue the current action
under the ‘three strikes’ provision of the [PLRA]”; they allow
Case 1:23-cv-00212-AW-MJF Document 72 Filed 12/15/25 Page 15 of 20

Page 16 of 20
“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”; 	and 	they 	allow
“consideration of whether any ruling in the other action
affects” the plaintiff’s current case. Spires v. Taylor, No. 3:00-
cv-249-RH, Order of Dismissal, Doc. 10 (N.D. Fla. Oct. 27,
2000). Also, the requested “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).
If Plaintiff desires to proceed with this action, he
must file a second amended complaint on the court
approved form and use case number 1:23-cv-212-AW-
MJF. Plaintiff is required to answer each question on
the 	complaint 	form—including 	those 	regarding
Plaintiff’s litigation history—completely and honestly.
The failure to do so likely will result in dismissal of this
action.
Doc. 15 at 5–6.
There is no excuse for Plaintiff’s failure to respond truthfully to
Question VIII(C) on the complaint form. The question is 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).
Case 1:23-cv-00212-AW-MJF Document 72 Filed 12/15/25 Page 16 of 20

Page 17 of 20
The District Court should not allow Plaintiff’s false response 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 	consequences.”). 	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
appropriate exercise of the district court’s inherent authority to manage
its docket and enforce the local rules. [Plaintiff] violated the local rules
Case 1:23-cv-00212-AW-MJF Document 72 Filed 12/15/25 Page 17 of 20

Page 18 of 20
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—
and 	the 	complaint 	forms 	instructions 	as 	well 	as 	the 	undersigned’s
orders—is dismissal 	without 	prejudice. 	McNair, 	143 	F.4th at 	1308.
Because Plaintiff alleges that the incidents giving rise to his claims began
on June 1, 2023, Florida’s four-year statute of limitations likely would
not preclude Plaintiff from refiling this action this civil action in the near
future. Shelton v. Rohrs, 406 F. App’x 340, 341 (11th Cir. 2010).
F. 	No lesser Sanction Would Suffice
A sanction less than dismissal would not suffice to deter Plaintiff’s
conduct. For example, providing Plaintiff yet another opportunity to
amend his complaint to disclose the previous lawsuits 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
Case 1:23-cv-00212-AW-MJF Document 72 Filed 12/15/25 Page 18 of 20

Page 19 of 20
lawsuits that should have been disclosed initially); Harris v. Warden, 498
F. App’x 962, 964–65 (11th Cir. 2012).
CONCLUSION
For 	the 	reasons 	set 	forth 	above, 	the 	undersigned 	respectfully
RECOMMENDS that the District Court:
1. 	GRANT Defendant Courtot’s motion to dismiss, Doc. 51.
2. 	DISMISS this civil action without prejudice for Plaintiff’s
failure to comply with the Local Rules.
3. 	DIRECT the clerk of the court to enter judgment accordingly
and close this case file.
At Panama City, Florida, this 15th day of December 2025.
/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
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 who fails to object to this
Case 1:23-cv-00212-AW-MJF Document 72 Filed 12/15/25 Page 19 of 20

Page 20 of 20
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 1:23-cv-00212-AW-MJF Document 72 Filed 12/15/25 Page 20 of 20