Richard V. Moore v. Kimberly A. Crawford - Judicial Immunity Dismissal

Jump To

Top Caption Trial Court Document

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

March 31, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

Richard V. Moore v. Kimberly A. Crawford

District Court, M.D. Alabama

• Citations: None known
• Docket Number: 1:25-cv-00126

• Precedential Status: Unknown Status

• Opinion

• Authorities (5)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (0)

• PDF

Trial Court Document

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SOUTHERN DIVISION

RICHARD V. MOORE, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) CASE NO. 1:26-cv-126-ECM
) [WO]
KIMBERLY A. CRAWFORD, )
)
Defendant. )

O R D E R
Plaintiff Richard V. Moore (“Moore”), who is proceeding pro se, brought this civil
action against Kimberly A. Crawford, Judge of the Circuit Court of Dale County, Alabama
(“Judge Crawford”), arising out of Judge Crawford’s dismissal of Moore’s request to
modify his child support obligation. (Doc. 1). In the amended complaint (the operative
complaint), Moore alleges that Judge Crawford denied him “equal protection of the law”
and violated his constitutional rights; Moore requests that the Court award him $5 million
in damages. (Doc. 10). On September 29, 2025, the Magistrate Judge recommended that
this case be dismissed with prejudice based on judicial immunity. (Doc. 14). Moore timely
filed objections to the Recommendation. (Doc. 16). After carefully reviewing the record
in this case, the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, and Moore’s objections, the
Court concludes that Moore’s objections are due to be overruled, the Recommendation of
the Magistrate Judge is due to be adopted, and this case is due to be dismissed with
prejudice.
When a party objects to a Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, the
district court must review the disputed portions de novo. 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1); see also

United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 674 (1980). The district court “may accept, reject,
or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate
judge[,] . . . receive further evidence[,] or recommit the matter to the magistrate judge with
instructions.” 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1). De novo review requires that the district court
independently consider factual issues based on the record. Jeffrey S. by Ernest S. v. State
Bd. of Educ. of State of Ga., 896 F.2d 507, 513 (11th Cir. 1990). However, objections to

the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation must be sufficiently specific in order
to warrant de novo review. See LoConte v. Dugger, 847 F.2d 745, 750 (11th Cir. 1988)
(“Whenever any party files a timely and specific objection to a finding of fact by a
magistrate [judge], the district court has an obligation to conduct a de novo review of the
record with respect to that factual issue.”). Otherwise, a Report and Recommendation is

reviewed for clear error. See Macort v. Prem, Inc., 208 F. App’x 781, 784 (11th Cir. 2006).1
In his objections, Moore contends that Judge Crawford “acted in the clear absence
of all Good Faith.” (Doc. 16 at 1). Although he asserts that Judge Crawford committed
error in dismissing his child support action, he fails to establish that Judge Crawford was
not acting in her judicial capacity or that she acted in the clear absence of all jurisdiction.

See Sibley v. Lando, 437 F.3d 1067, 1070 (11th Cir. 2005) (per curiam); see also
McCullough v. Finley, 907 F.3d 1324, 1331 (11th Cir. 2018) (explaining that a judge is

1 While the Court recognizes that Macort is nonprecedential, the Court finds it persuasive.
2
entitled to absolute judicial immunity from damages “regardless of whether [she] made a
mistake, acted maliciously, or exceeded [her] authority”). Consequently, Moore’s

objections are due to be overruled.
Accordingly, upon an independent review of the record, and for good cause, it is
ORDERED as follows:
1. Moore’s objections (doc. 16) are OVERRULED;
2. The Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (doc. 14) is ADOPTED, and
this case is DISMISSED with prejudice;

1. All pending motions are DENIED as moot, and all pending deadlines are TERMINATED. A separate Final Judgment will be entered. DONE this 31st day of March, 2026.

/s/ Emily C. Marks
EMILY C. MARKS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3