Abboud v. Hardwick et al

Filing 58

ORDER overruling 57 Plaintiff's Motion/Petition/Response Objecting to Report and Recommendation; adopting 56 Report and Recommendation; granting, in part, and denying, in part, 24 Motion to Dismiss and 31 Motion to Dismiss; and directing the Clerk of the Court to enter judgment and close the file. Signed by Judge Marcia Morales Howard on 8/30/2024. (JW)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
JACKSONVILLE DIVISION
CAMILLE A. ABBOUD,
Plaintiff,
vs.

Case No. 3:22-cv-1204-MMH-MCR

ROBERT A. HARDWICK, et al.,
Defendants.

/
ORDER

THIS CAUSE is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation
(Doc. 56; Report), entered by the Honorable Monte C. Richardson, United States
Magistrate Judge, on August 14, 2024. In the Report, the Magistrate Judge
recommends that the motions to dismiss pending in this case be granted and
Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint (Doc. 18) be dismissed without
prejudice. See Report at 18; see also Defendants, St. Johns County & Board of
Commissioners-State of Florida, and St. Johns Sheriff-Robert A. Hardwick’s,
Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Rules 8(a)(2) and 10(b), Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure (Doc. 24), filed November 6, 2023; Defendants, Ralph J. Larizza,
Shevaun Harris, Judge Joan Anthony, and Judge Alexander R. Christine, Jr.,
Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint (Doc. 31), filed
1

December 12, 2023. On August 19, 2024, Plaintiff Camille A. Abboud filed
objections to the Report. See Motion/Petition/Response Objecting to Report and
Recommendation (Doc. 57; Objections). Although the time for filing a response
to the Objections has not yet run, the Court has reviewed the Objections and
finds them to be improper for the reasons discussed below. As such, responses
are not necessary, and the Court finds it appropriate to take up the matter at
this time.
I.

Standard of Review

The Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings
or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.”

28 U.S.C. § 636(b).

Pursuant to Rule 72, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (Rule(s)), the Court “must
determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition that has been
properly objected to.”

See Rule 72(b)(3); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

However, a party waives the right to challenge on appeal any unobjected-to
factual and legal conclusions. See 11th Cir. R. 3-1.1 As such, the Court reviews
those portions of the Magistrate Judge’s findings to which no objection was filed
for plain error and only if necessary, in the interests of justice. See id.; see also
Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985) (“It does not appear that Congress
intended to require district court review of a magistrate [judge’s] factual or legal

The Magistrate Judge properly informed the parties of the time period for
objecting and the consequences of failing to do so. See Report at 1.
1

2

conclusions, under a de novo or any other standard, when neither party objects
to those findings.”); Dupree v. Warden, 715 F.3d 1295, 1304-05 (11th Cir. 2013)
(recommending the adoption of what would become 11th Circuit Rule 3-1 so
that district courts do not have “to spend significant amounts of time and
resources reviewing every issue—whether objected to or not.”).
Moreover, the Court need not consider “‘[f]rivolous, conclusive, or general
objections . . . .’” See McCullars v. Comm’r, Soc. Sec. Admin., 825 F. App’x 685,
694 (11th Cir. 2020) (quoting Marsden v. Moore, 847 F.2d 1536, 1548 (11th Cir.
1988)).2 Rather, “[a]n objection must specifically identify the portions of the
proposed findings and recommendation to which objection is made and the
specific basis for objection.” Id. (citing United States v. Schultz, 565 F.3d 1353,
1360 (11th Cir. 2009)).
II.

Discussion

While the Objections are largely incomprehensible, what is clear from a
concerted effort to decipher Plaintiff’s arguments is that he identifies no specific
legal or factual error in the Magistrate Judge’s analysis or his conclusions.
Rather, Plaintiff contends that the entire Report is “prejudicial, legally

The Court does not rely on unpublished opinions as binding precedent;
however, they may be cited in this Order when the Court finds them persuasive on a
particular point. See McNamara v. GEICO, 30 F.4th 1055, 1060–61 (11th Cir. 2022);
see generally Fed. R. App. P. 32.1; 11th Cir. R. 36–2 (“Unpublished opinions are not
considered binding precedent, but they may be cited as persuasive authority.”).
2

3

insufficient and full of non-factual assertions,” among other things.

See

Objections at 6. Such generalized objections are entirely insufficient to warrant
specific de novo review of the Magistrate Judge’s findings. See Schultz, 565
F.3d at 1353 (“[A] party that wishes to preserve its objection must clearly advise
the district court and pinpoint the specific findings that the party disagrees
with.”).

In light of Plaintiff’s failure to raise any specific legal or factual

objection to the Report, the Court finds that the Objections are due to be
overruled.
Upon review of the Report, Second Amended Complaint, and pending
motions, and absent a proper objection from Plaintiff, the Court will adopt the
Magistrate Judge’s finding that the Second Amended Complaint remains an
impermissible shotgun pleading.

See Report at 10-13.3

Most egregiously,

Plaintiff continues to combine numerous distinct causes of action into each of
his five counts and relies extensively on “conclusory, vague, and immaterial”
allegations throughout the pleading. See Weiland v. Palm Beach Cnty. Sheriff’s
Off., 792 F.3d 1313, 1322-23 (11th Cir. 2015) As a result, Defendants and the
Court are “hard-pressed to understand ‘the grounds upon which each claim . . .

Because the Court finds that dismissal on shotgun grounds is appropriate, the
Court declines to consider Defendants’ other arguments in support of dismissal.
Indeed, without a proper pleading, the Court cannot assess whether Plaintiff has
stated a claim against any particular Defendant or whether any immunity defenses
are applicable.
3

4

rests.’” See Barmapov v. Amuial, 986 F.3d 1321, 1326 (11th Cir. 2021) (quoting
Weiland, 792 F.3d at 1322-23). Indeed, the Court finds the pleading to be
largely indecipherable.
Although the Magistrate Judge recommends dismissal without prejudice
on this basis, see Report at 18, the Court finds that, as to the federal claims,
dismissal with prejudice is appropriate. The Court has provided Plaintiff with
two opportunities to remedy his deficient pleadings and has explained at length
how his prior complaints violate the shotgun-pleading rules. See Order (Doc. 4)
at 6-7; see also Order (Doc. 15) at 2-5. Nevertheless, the shotgun problems
remain. The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals instructs that where a pleader
fails to remedy a shotgun pleading problem after being given a chance to do so,
dismissal with prejudice is warranted. See Tran v. City of Holmes Beach, 817
F. App’x 911, 915 (11th Cir. 2020); Arrington v. Green, 757 F. App’x 796, 797
(11th Cir. 2018). On this record, the Court is convinced that Plaintiff is unable
or unwilling to comply with the Court’s directives and that nothing less than
dismissal will suffice. See Sarhan v. Miami Dade Coll., 800 F. App’x 769, 772
(11th Cir. 2020).

Nevertheless, while dismissal of the federal claims with

prejudice is warranted, the Court will dismiss the state law claims without
prejudice to re-filing in state court. See Vibe Micro, Inc. v. Shabanets, 878 F.3d
1291, 1296-97 (11th Cir. 2018) (finding that where a pleading is dismissed on

5

non-merits Rule 8 grounds, the state law claims should be dismissed without
prejudice to refiling in state court).
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED:
1.

Plaintiff’s Motion/Petition/Response Objecting to Report and
Recommendation (Doc. 57) is OVERRULED.

2.

The Report and Recommendation (Doc. 56) is ADOPTED, in part,
as set forth above.

3.

Defendants, St. Johns County & Board of Commissioners-State of
Florida, and St. Johns Sheriff-Robert A. Hardwick’s, Motion to
Dismiss Pursuant to Rules 8(a)(2) and 10(b), Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure (Doc. 24), and Defendants, Ralph J. Larizza, Shevaun
Harris, Judge Joan Anthony, and Judge Alexander R. Christine,
Jr., Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint (Doc.
31) are GRANTED, in part, and DENIED, in part.
A.

The Motions are GRANTED to the extent any federal claims
in the Second Amended Complaint are DISMISSED with
prejudice; and any state law claims are DISMISSED
without prejudice to refiling in the appropriate state court.

B.

Otherwise, the Motions are DENIED.

6

4.

The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly,
terminate all pending motions and deadlines as moot, and close the
file.

DONE AND ORDERED in Jacksonville, Florida, on August 30, 2024.

lc11
Copies to:
Counsel of Record
Pro Se Parties

7