GRANTLEY v. TATUM et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
PENSACOLA DIVISION
DERRICK GRANTLEY,
Plaintiff,
v. Case No. 3:26-cv-282-AW-HTC
TORI TATUM, et al.,
Defendants.
_______________________________/
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
Having considered the report and recommendation (ECF No. 5), and having
considered de novo the issues raised in Plaintiff’s objections (ECF No. 6), I now
adopt the report and recommendation and incorporate it into this order. It is
undisputed that Plaintiff did not comply with the court’s local rules because he did
not accurately disclose his litigation history. (The court’s local rules require use of
prisoner forms, which in turn require accurate disclosures.) I conclude, as a matter
of discretion, that dismissal is appropriate under these circumstances. See McNair v.
Johnson, 143 F.4th 1301 (11th Cir. 2025). I reject Plaintiff’s contention in his
objections that the only purpose of the requirement is to determine a plaintiff’s three-
strikes status. That is one purpose, but not the only one. At any rate, litigants are not
entitled to ignore requirements whenever they believe the requirement’s purpose is
otherwise fulfilled.
Case 3:26-cv-00282-AW-HTC Document 7 Filed 02/17/26 Page 1 of 2

2
The clerk will enter a judgment that says, “This case is dismissed without
prejudice based on Plaintiff’s failure to accurately disclose his litigation history.”
The clerk will then close the file.
SO ORDERED on February 17, 2026.
s/ Allen Winsor
Chief United States District Judge
Case 3:26-cv-00282-AW-HTC Document 7 Filed 02/17/26 Page 2 of 2