The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
PANAMA CITY DIVISION
JERRY DRAKE VARNELL,
Plaintiff,
v. Case No. 5:25-cv-362-TKW-MJF
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al.,
Defendants.
/
ORDER
This case is before the Court based on the magistrate judge’s Report and
Recommendation (R&R) (Doc. 23) and Plaintiff’s “Motion in Response to Proposed
Findings and Recommendations” (Doc. 25). The Court will treat Plaintiff’s motion
as an objection to the R&R.
The Court reviewed the issues raised in the objection de novo under 28 U.S.C.
§636(b)(1) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3) and based on that review, the Court agrees
with the magistrate judge’s determination that this case should be dismissed based
on Plaintiff’s failure to truthfully disclose his litigation history. See McNair v.
Johnson, 141 F.4th 1301, 1308 (11th Cir. 2025).
The Court did not overlook Plaintiff’s argument that his failure to list the
omitted case in response to Question VIII.C was an honest mistake because he did
not think that term “lawsuit” encompassed a §2255 case. That argument has been
rejected in prior cases, see Brown v. Foskey, 2024 WL 3497939, at *1 (N.D. Fla.
July 22, 2024) (citing cases), and it is not persuasive here because Plaintiff does not
argue that he did not realize that a §2255 case is akin to a habeas petition and
Question VII.C. specifically required Plaintiff to list “habeas corpus petition[s] ...
challenging [his] conviction.”
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that:
1. The magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation is adopted and
incorporated by reference in this Order.
2. This case is DISMISSED without prejudice under the Court’s
inherent authority based on Plaintiff's failure to truthfully disclose his litigation
history.
3. The Clerk shall enter judgment in accordance with this Order and close
the case file.
DONE AND ORDERED this 15th day of June, 2026.
fe
T.KENT WETHERELL,
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Page 2 of 2