GRAYBILL v. BARFIELD et al

Page 1 of 3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
PANAMA CITY DIVISION
ROLAND GRAYBILL,
Plaintiff,
v. Case No. 5:25-cv-245-TKW-MJF
CALHOUN COUNTY CLERK OF
COURT, et al.,
Defendants.
/
ORDER
This case is before the Court based on the magistrate judge’s Report and
Recommendation (R&R) (Doc. 21). No objections were filed.1
Upon due consideration of the R&R and the entire case file, the Court agrees
with the magistrate judge’s determination that this case should be dismissed without
prejudice because Plaintiff’s third amended complaint is a “shotgun pleading.” The
Court did not overlook the new complaints (Docs. 23, 24) filed by Plaintiff after the
R&R was issued, but those documents do not cure the problems identified by the
1 Plaintiff filed multiple documents after the R&R was issued—“How to Avoid or Fix a
Shotgun Pleading” (Doc. 22); “Fourth Amended Complaint as Additional Addendum for Info
Related with Info of a Non-Shotgun Type Pleading” (Doc. 23); “Verified 2nd Civil Complaint for
Denial of Access to Courts, Due Process Violations, Negligence, Retaliation, and Damages as a
Non Shotgun Type of Pleading Each Party is Separated Out with Separate Allegations” (Doc. 24);
and “Affidavit of Economic and Personal Harm” (Doc. 25)—but none of those documents object
to or otherwise take issue with the magistrate judge’s determination that the third amended
complaint was an impermissible shotgun pleading.
Case 5:25-cv-00245-TKW-MJF Document 26 Filed 02/17/26 Page 1 of 3

Page 2 of 3
magistrate judge because, as the magistrate judge previously explained, “[t]he
federal rules do not authorize litigants to submit their pleadings in a piecemeal
fashion [and] contemplate the use of only one complaint per litigant.” Doc. 19 at 1
(quoting Aufderhaar v. Warder, 2021 WL 7448081, at *4 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 3, 2021),
report and recommendation adopted, No. 8:21-CV-419-MSS-CPT, 2021 WL
7448085 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 30, 2021)). Thus, although the fourth amended complaint
itself is slightly better pled than the prior iterations of the complaint, the disposition
recommended by the magistrate judge (dismissal of this case without prejudice) is
still warranted because Plaintiff has continued to file multiple complaints in
violation of the rules of procedure and the magistrate judge’s prior orders.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that:
1. The magistrate judge’s R&R is adopted and incorporated by reference
in this Order.
2. This case is DISMISSED without prejudice because the third amended
complaint is a “shotgun pleading” that fails to comply with the Florida Rules of Civil
Procedure and the new complaints filed after the R&R was issued violate the rules
and prior court orders.
3. The Clerk shall terminate all pending motions, enter judgment in
accordance with this Order, and close the case file.
Case 5:25-cv-00245-TKW-MJF Document 26 Filed 02/17/26 Page 2 of 3

Page 3 of 3
DONE AND ORDERED this 17th day of February, 2026.
__________________________________
T. KENT WETHERELL, II
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 5:25-cv-00245-TKW-MJF Document 26 Filed 02/17/26 Page 3 of 3