MCREYNOLDS v. COURTOT et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
GAINESVILLE DIVISION
BLAKE AUSTIN MCREYNOLDS,
Plaintiff,
v. Case No. 1:23-cv-212-AW-MJF
J. LYLES, et al.,
Defendants.
_______________________________/
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
The magistrate judge issued a report and recommendation concluding the
court should dismiss for Plaintiff’s failure to accurately disclose his litigation
history. ECF No. 72. I have considered the report and recommendation, and I have
considered de novo the issues in Plaintiff’s objections (ECF No. 73). I now adopt
the report and recommendation and incorporate it into this order. I overrule the
objections.
The local rules require pro se plaintiffs to use certain forms, and the forms
require disclosure of litigation history. The report and recommendation sets out the
basis for the requirement and why compliance is important. Plaintiff did not
accurately disclose his litigation history, despite an opportunity to do so and despite
warnings about the consequences of not doing so.
In his objections, Plaintiff says he is legally blind. He has made that assertion
throughout this case. But he was able to understand the report and recommendation
Case 1:23-cv-00212-AW-MJF Document 74 Filed 02/02/26 Page 1 of 2

2
and file a cogent response. He does not show why any vision impairment would
preclude his accurately disclosing his litigation history. Plaintiff also says he has had
head injuries and forgot some of his cases. But he does not explicitly state that he
forgot the cases at issue, and he does not explain why his complaint did not at least
include a disclaimer that he might have others. Moreover, it is inconceivable that he
would forget that he appealed his underlying conviction. Allowing a Plaintiff to
escape his obligations by simply announcing a lapse in memory would render the
rule useless.
The magistrate judge correctly explains why a lesser sanction would not
suffice, and I also note (as the magistrate did) that the four-year statute of limitations
has not run, meaning this dismissal will not likely operate as a dismissal with
prejudice.
The clerk will enter a judgment that says, “This case is dismissed without
prejudice based on Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the court’s local rules and a
court order.” The clerk will then close the file.
SO ORDERED on February 2, 2026.
s/ Allen Winsor
Chief United States District Judge
Case 1:23-cv-00212-AW-MJF Document 74 Filed 02/02/26 Page 2 of 2