[D O NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

F O R THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FILEDU.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

AUGUST 3, 2006

N o . 06-10740

THOMAS K. KAHN

N o n - A r g u m e n t Calendar

CLERK

D . C. Docket No. 04-61385-CV-PCH

JO H N WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

MICHAEL WEISS,

HAL ANDERSON,

B IL L IN G , COCHRAN, HEALTH, LYLES,

M A U R O & ANDERSON, P.A.,

Defendants-Appellees.

A p p e al from the United States District Court

fo r the Southern District of Florida

(August 3, 2006)

B efo re DUBINA, BLACK and HULL, Circuit Judges.

P E R CURIAM:

J o h n Williams filed a pro se complaint, pursuant to 42U.S.C. § 1983, ag ain st attorneys Michael Weiss and Hal Anderson, and their law firm, Billing, C o c h r a n , Heath, Lyles, Mauro & Anderson, P.A (collectively, Billing Cochran). In a prior appeal, we affirmed the district court's dismissal of Williams' complaint.1 S e e Williams v. Carney, 157 F. App'x 103 (11th Cir. 2005). Williams now appeals th e district court's grant of Billing Cochran's motion for Rule 11 sanctions against h im . He argues the district court failed to give sufficient reasoning as to why it im p o se d sanctions. We agree and, therefore, vacate and remand the district court's o rd er for further explanation.

A district court's award of Rule 11 sanctions is reviewed for abuse of d iscretio n . Massengale v. Ray, 267 F.3d 1298, 1301 (11th Cir. 2001). Rule 11 p erm its imposing sanctions on an attorney, law firm, or party as the court deems ap p ro p riate. Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(c). When the district court orders sanctions, it m u st describe the conduct it determined warranted sanctions and explain the basis fo r the sanctions imposed. Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(c)(3); Riccard v. Prudential Ins. Co., 3 0 7 F.3d 1277, 1295 (11th Cir. 2002). "[A] district court abuses its discretion by im p o s in g sanctions on a plaintiff and his attorney absent findings that the plaintiff a n d his attorney violated Rule 11." Baker v. Alderman, 158 F.3d 516, 526 (11th C ir. 1998).

Here, the magistrate judge issued an order granting Rule 11 sanctions ag ain st Williams, but failed to explain its reasons for doing so. It subsequently issu ed a report and recommendation that calculated the amount to be paid and the reaso n s for that amount, but again failed to explain why it ordered sanctions in the f ir st place. The district court adopted the magistrate's report without further e x p la n a tio n . As a result, this Court has no record for review to determine whether th e district court abused its discretion in awarding Rule 11 sanctions. Accordingly, w e vacate the order granting Rule 11 sanctions and remand for further explanation in accordance with this opinion.

V A C A T E D AND REMANDED.

1 Although Williams raises arguments as to our holding in his previous appeal, we will not address those arguments in the present appeal.