Reddick v. DeSantis ( 2023 )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION BRYON L REDDICK, Plaintiff, v. Case No. 8:22-cv-2540-KKML-JSS RON DESANTIS, NICHOLAS MALONE, RANDALL PEPITONE, and NICHOLAS URSITTI, Defendants. ORDER On March 22, 2023, the Magistrate Judge entered a Report and Recommendation, recommending that Plaintiff Bryon Reddick’s Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 11) be denied and his Amended Complaint (Doc. 3) be dismissed for a variety of reasons. R&R (Doc. 12). The fourteen-day deadline (with an additional three days as required under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(d)), for Reddick to object to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation has passed without him lodging an objection. Considering the record, the Court adopts the Report and Recommendation for the reasons stated therein; denies Reddick’s Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis; and dismisses Reddick’s amended complaint without prejudice. After conducting a careful and complete review of the findings and recommendations, a district judge may accept, reject, or modify a magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Ifa party files a timely and specific objection to a finding of fact by a magistrate judge, the district court must conduct a de novo review with respect to that factual issue. Stokes v. Singletary, 952 F.2d 1567, 1576 (11th Cir. 1992). The district court reviews legal conclusions de novo, even in the absence of an objection. See Cooper-Houston v. S. Ry. Co., 37 F.3d 603, 604 (11th Cir. 1994); Ashworth v. Glades Cnty. Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs, 379 F. Supp. 3d 1244, 1246 (M.D. Fla. May 3, 2019) (Steele, J.). In the absence of any objection and after reviewing the factual allegations and legal conclusions, the Court adopts the Report and Recommendation. Reddick’s complaint does not meet the pleading requirements of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8 and 10 because it is a shotgun pleading in multiple respects. See Weiland v. Palm Beach Cnty. Sheriffs Off, 792 F.3d 1313, 1322-23 (11th Cir. 2015). As the Magistrate Judge concluded, Reddick’s amended complaint fails to meaningfully “specify[] which of the defendants the claim is brought against.” Id. at 1323; R&R at 5. And, as the Magistrate Judge notes, Reddick’s amended complaint fails to separate into different counts each cause of action or claim for relief as required by Rule 10(b). R&R at 6. Accordingly, it is now ORDERED: XY 1. The Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 12) is ADOPTED and made a part of this Order for all purposes. 2. Reddick’s Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 11) is DENIED. 3. Reddick’s amended complaint (Doc. 3) is DISMISSED without prejudice. 4, Within twenty-one (21) days of this order—so by May 1, 2023—Reddick may file an amended complaint that complies with the pleading requirements set forth in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and that corrects the deficiencies identified above and in the Report and Recommendation. Should Reddick choose to file an amended complaint, he must either file a renewed motion to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the full filing fee. Failure to comply with these directives will result in dismissal of this case without further notice. ORDERED in Tampa, Florida, on April 10, 2023. fathnen Kimball Mrset athryn’ Kimball Mizelle United States District Judge