Bell v. State of Florida ( 2022 )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 1:22-cv-21583-KMM BRAXTON BELL, et al., Plaintiffs, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, et al., Defendants. / ORDER ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION THIS CAUSE came before the Court upon United State Magistrate Judge Lauren F. Louis’s Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) (ECF No. 21). On May 24, 2022, this Court referred pretrial matters to Magistrate Judge Louis. See ECF No. 6. Thereafter, upon a sua sponte review of the record, Magistrate Judge Louis entered an Order to Show Cause (“OTSC”) (ECF No. 9). Plaintiffs failed to comply with the OTSC and on October 27, 2022, Magistrate Judge Louis issued the R&R, recommending that this action be DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to comply with Court orders. R&R at 3. No objections to the R&R were filed, and the time to do so has now passed. The matter is now ripe for review. As set forth below, the Court ADOPTS the R&R. The Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by a magistrate judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Crim. P. 59(b)(3). The Court “must consider de novo any objection to the magistrate judge’s recommendation.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 59(b)(3). A de novo review is therefore required if a party files “a proper, specific objection” to a factual finding contained in the report. Macort v. Prem, Inc., 208 F. App’x 781, 784 (11th Cir. 2006). “It is critical that the objection be sufficiently specific and not a general objection to the report” to warrant de novo review. Id. Yet when a party has failed to object or has not properly objected to the magistrate judge’s findings, “the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.” See Keaton v. United States, No. 14-21230-CIV, 2015 WL 12780912, at *1 (S.D. Fla. May 4, 2015); see also Lopez v. Berryhill, No. 17-CV-24263, 2019 WL 2254704, at *2 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 26, 2019) (stating that a district judge “evaluate[s] portions of the R & R not objected to under a clearly erroneous standard of review” (citing Davis v. Apfel, 93 F. Supp. 2d 1313, 1317 (M.D. Fla. 2000))). In her Report and Recommendation, Magistrate Judge Louis recommends dismissing this action for failure to comply with Court orders. R&R at 3. Namely, Magistrate Judge Louis states that Plaintiffs have failed to comply with the OTSC. In the OTSC, Magistrate Judge Louis observed that (1) the pro se Trust Plaintiff failed to retain counsel by the deadline set by the Court; (2) the Complaint is facially deficient under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(a) because only Plaintiff Braxton Bell had signed the Complaint; and (3) Plaintiffs failed to serve the State of Florida and Judge Vivianne Del Rio with process by the deadline to do so under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). OTSC at 1. Accordingly, Magistrate Judge Louis ordered that: (1) Plaintiffs shall show cause why all claims brought by Plaintiff Margaret Bell Handfort MD Estate Trust should not be dismissed without prejudice, and Plaintiff Margaret Bell Handfort MD Estate Trust terminated from this action for failure to comply with Court orders (ECF No. 9). (2) Plaintiffs shall show cause why the Complaint (ECF No. 1) should not be stricken as facially deficient under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(a). (3) Plaintiffs shall show cause why the Court should not dismiss without prejudice all claims in the Complaint against the State of Florida and Judge Vivianne Del Rio, and dismiss those defendants from this action, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). OTSC at 2-3. Plaintiffs were required to respond to the OTSC on or before September 22, 2022. Plaintiffs have not yet responded to the OTSC or amended their Complaint. Accordingly, Magistrate Judge Louis recommends dismissing this action for failure to comply with Court orders. R&R at 3. This Court agrees. See Foudy v. Indian River Cnty. Sheriff's Off., 845 F.3d 1117, 1126 (11th Cir. 2017) (“Federal courts possess an inherent power to dismiss a complaint for failure to comply with a court order.”). Accordingly, UPON CONSIDERATION of the Motion, the R&R, the pertinent portions of the record, and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Magistrate Judge Louis’s R&R (ECF No. 21) is ADOPTED. The Complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this 37s¢day of October 2022. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE c: All counsel of record