Kelly

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

GREGORY KELLY and ANNETTE B. )

KELLY, )

)

Plaintiffs, )

)

v. ) CASE NO. 2:25-cv-00825-RAH

)

ALABAMA STATE PORT )

AUTHORITY, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

ORDER

On October 14, 2025, pro se plaintiff Gregory Kelly, a vexatious litigant,1 and

his wife, Annette B. Kelly, filed a 218-page complaint against 21 Alabama state

boards, agencies, departments, and commissions alleging 65 claims including

constitutional violations, federal statutory violations, and multiple violations of state

law. (Doc. 1.) On October 17, 2025, the assigned Magistrate Judge issued an order

requiring Annette B. Kelly to show cause why she should not be declared a vexatious

litigant for her participation in Gregory Kelly’s continued vexatious conduct. (Doc.

4.) The Magistrate Judge also ordered the Kellys to show cause why this action

should not be summarily dismissed. (Doc. 4.) Thereafter, instead of timely

responding as to why the Complaint should not be dismissed and why Annette B.

Kelly should not be declared a vexatious litigant, the Kellys filed a motion to stay

the case and a pleading entitled, “First Amended Master Short Form Compliant And

Jury Trial Demanded.” (Doc. 5.) This pleading incorporated and adopted their

1 See Kelly v. Montgomery Water Works & Sanitary Sewer Bd., No. 2:24-cv-348-RAH, 2025 WL

1461271, at *1 (M.D. Ala. May 21, 2025).

original complaint and claimed to “add causes of action against” certain defendants

because, according to the Kellys, the Defendants “have acquiesced in the Brokeback

Mountain homosexual gang members spying and snooping and surveilling in the

Plaintiffs education, finance, and healthcare record and election communication and

writing stored in the internet cloud.” (Doc. 5 at 2.)

Thereafter, the Magistrate Judge set the case for an in-person status

conference, and then re-set the conference as an accommodation to the Kellys.

(Docs. 8 & 12.) The Kellys did not attend the conference, although they did file new

lawsuits that same day. (Doc. 16.)

On November 19, 2025, the Magistrate Judge recommended that this action

be dismissed without prejudice due to the Kellys’ failure to comply with orders of

the Court and failure to prosecute. (Doc. 16.) The Magistrate Judge also

recommended that this Court’s previous sanctions order2 against Gregory Kelly be

expanded to include “anyone acting in concert with him.” (Doc. 16 at 2.)

On December 2, 2025, and December 3, 2025, the Kellys filed a reply and

objection, accusing the Court of a pattern of judicial misconduct. (See docs. 19 &

20.) The Kellys also continued to advance a host of conspiratorial, incoherent and

rambling accusations against the Defendants and various state and federal judges.

When a party objects to a magistrate judge's recommendation, the district

court must review the disputed portions de novo. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The district

court “may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition; receive further

2 On May 21, 2025, this Court, “as a consequence of Kelly’s vexatious filing of shotgun pleadings,”

declared Gregory Kelly a vexatious litigant and ordered that, “in the event Kelly files a shotgun

pleading in the future, after appropriate review, the Court will summarily dismiss the pleading and

action without prejudice.” Kelly v. Montgomery Water Works & Sanitary Sewer Bd., No. 2:24-cv-

348-RAH, 2025 WL 1461271, at *1 (M.D. Ala. May 21, 2025). Despite this order, Kelly has

continued to file shotgun and frivolous lawsuits. The one primary change of recent is the addition

of Kelly’s wife, Annette B. Kelly, as an additional plaintiff. See, e.g., Case Numbers 2:25-cv-

00733 (M.D. Ala.), 2:25-cv-00795 (M.D. Ala.), and 2:25-cv-00825 (M.D. Ala.).

evidence; or resubmit the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.” Fed. R.

Civ. P. 72(b)(3). De novo review requires that the district court independently

consider factual issues based on the record. Jeffrey S. ex rel. Ernest S. v. State Bd.

of Educ., 896 F.2d 507, 513 (11th Cir. 1990). See also United States v. Opie, 347 F.

App'x 495, 499 n.1 (11th Cir. 2009). However, objections to the magistrate judge's

recommendation must be sufficiently specific to warrant de novo review. See

Macort v. Prem, Inc., 208 F. App'x 781, 783–85 (11th Cir. 2006). Otherwise, a

recommendation is reviewed for clear error. Id.

In the Kellys’ reply and objection, they do not show any error with the

Magistrate Judge’s recommendation, and they do not propose to file an amended

complaint that cures the deficiencies in their Complaint, as amended. Instead, they

continue to advance their conspiratorial, incoherent, and rambling accusations

against the Defendants and various state and federal judges. All told, the Court finds

no error with the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge.

Accordingly, upon an independent and de novo review of the record, it is

ORDERED as follows:

1. The Recommendation (doc. 16.) of the Magistrate Judge is

ADOPTED;

2. Plaintiffs’ Motion to Add Documents (Exhibit #8 and #9) To the

Plaintiffs’ Exhibit List (doc. 21) is DENIED as moot;

3. This case is summarily DISMISSED without prejudice; and

4. As a consequence of Gregory Kelly’s vexatious filing of shotgun and

frivolous pleadings, and now by and through his wife, Annette B. Kelly, in the event

Gregory Kelly or anyone acting in concert with him, including Annette B. Kelly,

files a shotgun or facially frivolous complaint in the future, after appropriate

review, the Court will summarily dismiss the pleading and the action without

prior notice.

DONE, on this the 15th day of December 2025.

R. AUSTIN “pp JR.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE