Michael A. DeVita v. Midtown Motors, et al.

What the court wrote

Verbatim from the court's document (public domain). Ellipses mark omitted text; nothing is paraphrased.

Complaint such as “Lipham v. General Motors LLC, 665 F.3d 1314 (11th Cir. 2011),” “Zinnerman v. Williams, 749 So. 2d 453 (Ala. Civ. App. 1999),” and “FTC v. Sage Auto Group, No. 16-cv-07329 (C.D. Cal. 2016)” that do not appear to exist and therefore appear to be hallucinated. The hallucinated case citations and overall nature and format of the pleading strongly suggest that DeVita is using some form of generative artificial intelligence to draft his complaints. That generative AI may be used or consulted does not mean that an AI-generated complaint is legally sufficient or that DeVita is excused from ensuring the accuracy of his case citations and legal authorities. Whether true or not, the point remains that DeVita has not filed a legally sufficient complaint and has announced his position that he will not file another one. As such, an order from this Court to file another complaint is not warranted. Accordingly, upon an independent and de novo review of the record, it is ORDERED as follows: 1. Plaintiff’s Objections (doc. 30) are OVERRULED; 2. The Recommendation (doc. 28) of the Magistrate Judge is ADOPTED; 3. Plaintiff’s Motion to Recuse (doc. 31) is DENIED as moot; and 4. This case is DISMISSED without prejudice. DONE and ORDERED on this the 25th day of March 2026. R. AUSTIN HUFFAKER, JR. CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE