ROBINSON v. OLIVER et al

-1-
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
MACON DIVISION
JONATHAN ROBINSON, 	)
)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
)
v. 	) 	CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:25-cv-323 (MTT)
)
Commissioner TYRONE OLIVER, et 	)
al., 	)
)
)
Defendants. 	)
)
ORDER
After screening Plaintiff Jonathan Robinson’s second amended complaint
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, United States Magistrate Judge Charles H. Weigle
recommends dismissing Plaintiff’s claims without prejudice. ECF 11. Plaintiff objects.
ECF 18. He also filed what appears to be a third amended complaint, which the Court
construes as a motion for leave to amend. ECF 19. The Court DENIES the motion for
leave to amend, and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the Court reviews de novo
those portions of the Recommendation to which Plaintiff objects.
The second amended complaint1 alleges that in July 2023, prison officials
destroyed Plaintiff’s legal materials and spilled homemade alcohol all over his cell,
damaging his legal files. ECF 10 at 1–2. It also alleges prison officials destroyed his
legal materials in February and August 2025. Id. at 2. Construing the second amended
1 The Magistrate Judge screened Plaintiff’s second amended complaint as the operative complaint. ECF
11 at 4 n.2.
Case 5:25-cv-00323-MTT-CHW Document 21 Filed 07/07/26 Page 1 of 5

-2-
complaint liberally, the Magistrate Judge identified the following claims: 1) due process
claims for loss of property; 2) access to courts claims; 3) retaliation claims; and 4)
grievance claims. ECF 11 at 5–9. After screening all claims, the Magistrate Judge
recommends dismissal. Id.
Plaintiff objects,2 stating that he has “presented actionable constitutional claims,”
but he does not address the deficiencies identified by the Magistrate Judge. ECF 18 at
1 (capitalization removed). When a party's objections are “[f]rivolous, conclusive, or
general,” the Court “need not” consider them. United States v. Schultz, 565 F.3d 1353,
1361 (11th Cir. 2009) (per curiam) (citation omitted). An objecting party “must clearly
advise the district court and pinpoint the specific findings that the party disagrees with.”
Id. at 1360. Nevertheless, the Court has reviewed the Recommendation de novo and
agrees with the deficiencies identified by the Magistrate Judge. The second amended
complaint fails to state a claim and is subject to dismissal.
Rather than raising specific objections to the Recommendation, Plaintiff asserts
that prison officials destroyed his legal materials again in February 2026, “further
obstruct[ing] Plaintiff’s ability to prosecute his claims.” ECF 18 at 2. In addition, Plaintiff
filed a third amended complaint asserting many of the same claims asserted in the
second amended complaint but adding claims relating to an alleged unconstitutional
strip search. ECF 19. Plaintiff has previously amended his complaint. See ECF 9; 10.
Consequently, Plaintiff is not entitled to amend as a matter of course, and the Court
construes Plaintiff’s filing as a motion for leave to amend. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)
(allowing amendment once as a matter of course).
2 Plaintiff’s objection is dated May 1, 2026. ECF 18 at 3. The extended objection deadline was April 28,
2026. ECF 14. Although the objection is late, the Court fully considers it.
Case 5:25-cv-00323-MTT-CHW Document 21 Filed 07/07/26 Page 2 of 5

-3-
Leave to amend should be “freely give[n] . . . when justice so requires.” Fed. R.
Civ. P. 15(a)(2). The Court “need not, however, allow an amendment (1) where there
has been undue delay, bad faith, dilatory motive, or repeated failure to cure deficiencies
by amendments previously allowed; (2) where allowing amendment would cause undue
prejudice to the opposing party; or (3) where amendment would be futile.” Bryant v.
Dupree, 252 F.3d 1161, 1163 (11th Cir. 2001) (citing Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178,
182 (1962)). “[D]enial of leave to amend is justified by futility when the complaint as
amended is still subject to dismissal.” Hall v. United Ins. Co. of Am., 367 F.3d 1255,
1263 (11th Cir. 2004) (quoting Burger King Corp. v. Weaver, 169 F.3d 1310, 1320 (11th
Cir. 1999)).
Here, the proposed third amended complaint would be subject to dismissal
because it fails to cure the second amended complaint’s deficiencies and because the
new claims asserted are not plausibly alleged. See ECF 19. The proposed third
amended complaint has five counts: 1) cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the
Eighth Amendment for unconstitutional strip searches; 2) unreasonable strip searches
in violation of the Fourth Amendment; 3) denial of access to courts based on the
destruction of Plaintiff’s legal materials; 4) violation of Plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment
due process rights based on the destruction of Plaintiff’s legal materials; and 5)
retaliation for Plaintiff’s exercise of constitutional rights. ECF 19-1 at 2. For the reasons
explained in the Recommendation, Counts III–V are deficient.3 See ECF 11 at 5–9.
3 The proposed third amended complaint asserts an access-to-courts claim relating to the destruction of
Plaintiff’s legal materials in February 2026. ECF 19-1 at 1. The second amended complaint describes
earlier incidents where prison officials destroyed Plaintiff’s materials. ECF 10 at 1–2. But for the same
reasons explained in the Recommendation, the third amended complaint fails to plausibly allege an
access-to-courts claim. ECF 11 at 6–8.
Case 5:25-cv-00323-MTT-CHW Document 21 Filed 07/07/26 Page 3 of 5

-4-
In addition, Plaintiff’s claims based on an alleged unconstitutional strip search
would also be subject to dismissal. The third amended complaint states, “Plaintiff was
subjected to a forced strip search, including invasive body inspection. Female staff
members were present during the search. Plaintiff was exposed in a degrading and
humiliating manner without legitimate penological justification.” ECF 19-1 at 1; 19 at 2.
But the proposed amended complaint does not connect any specific defendant to the
search. Id. To state a claim against a defendant, a plaintiff must link that defendant to
an alleged constitutional violation. See Douglas v. Yates, 535 F.3d 1316, 1322 (11th
Cir. 2008) (affirming dismissal for failure to state a claim when the “complaint fail[ed] to
allege facts that associate[d]” defendants with a constitutional violation); Zatler v.
Wainwright, 802 F.2d 397, 401 (11th Cir. 1986) (stating that “section 1983 requires
proof of an affirmative causal connection between the official's acts or omissions and
the alleged constitutional deprivation”). The proposed third amended complaint states,
“Defendants authorized and deployed a Special Operations Tactical Squad into Dooly
State Prison.” ECF 19-1 at 1. But it does not plausibly allege facts showing the
defendants knew of, authorized, or were otherwise involved in the alleged
unconstitutional strip search. Id. Consequently, the proposed third amended complaint
fails to state a claim relating to the alleged unconstitutional strip search against any
named defendant, and Counts I and II of the proposed third amended complaint would
also be subject to dismissal.
Accordingly, the Court DENIES the motion to amend (ECF 19) as futile.
After review, the Court accepts and adopts the findings, conclusions, and
recommendations of the Magistrate Judge. The Recommendation (ECF 11) is
Case 5:25-cv-00323-MTT-CHW Document 21 Filed 07/07/26 Page 4 of 5

-5-
ADOPTED and made the Order of the Court. Plaintiff’s complaint (ECF 10) is
DISMISSED without prejudice.4
SO ORDERED, this 7th day of July, 2026.
S/ Marc T. Treadwell
MARC T. TREADWELL, JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
4 Plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order, preliminary injunction, and preservation of evidence
(ECF 20) and his motion for assistance of counsel and for a stay of this case (ECF 18) are DENIED as
moot.
It appears the applicable two-year statute of limitations may have run for Plaintiff’s claims relating to the
July 2023 destruction of his legal materials. Consequently, dismissal of Plaintiff’s claims relating to that
incident may, in effect, be with prejudice.
Case 5:25-cv-00323-MTT-CHW Document 21 Filed 07/07/26 Page 5 of 5