Reported / Citable
Background
Jamehl Harville filed a complaint against Judge George B. Flint and other defendants. The district court referred the action to a U.S. magistrate judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636.
On August 31, 2026, the magistrate judge issued proposed findings of fact and recommended dismissing the complaint. Harville filed objections to that report and recommendation.
The Court’s Holding
U.S. District Judge Sean D. Jordan conducted a de novo review of Harville’s objections and the portions of the report to which he specifically objected. The court concluded that the magistrate judge’s findings and conclusions were correct and that the objections lacked merit as to the magistrate judge’s ultimate findings.
The court adopted the magistrate judge’s findings and conclusions as its own and dismissed Harville’s complaint with prejudice.
Key Takeaways
- The district court applied de novo review to the specific portions of the magistrate judge’s report challenged by Harville.
- The court overruled the objections as lacking merit with respect to the magistrate judge’s ultimate findings.
- The complaint was dismissed with prejudice.
Why It Matters
The order illustrates the district court’s review process when a party objects to a magistrate judge’s proposed findings and recommendation under 28 U.S.C. § 636. Because the underlying report was not included in the supplied opinion text, the order does not disclose the substantive grounds for dismissal.