Charlemagne v. The State of Florida et al

Filing 43

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS adopting Report and Recommendations re 39 Report and Recommendations on 28 Renewed Motion for More Definite Statement; granting 28 Renewed Motion for More Definite Statement; Amended Complaint due 5/ 30/2024; terminating as Moot 19 Motion to Dismiss 1 Complaint for Failure to State a Claim; terminating as Moot 38 Expedited Motion for Sanctions. Signed by Judge David S. Leibowitz on 5/7/2024. See attached document for full details. (ls)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO. 1:23-cv-24533-LEIBOWITZ/Goodman
JEAN-ELIE URIEL CHARLEMAGNE,
Plaintiff,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, et al. ,
Defendants.
______________________________________/
ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
This matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Jonathan Goodman for all
discovery disputes and non-dispositive pretrial motions [ECF No. 5]. Judge Goodman has since
issued a report, recommending that the Court grant the County Defendants’ Motion for a more
definite statement [ECF No. 28] by default and on the merits. [ECF No. 39]. Neither party has
submitted objections, and the time to do so has passed. After careful review of the filings, the
applicable law, and the record, the Court adopts Judge Goodman's report and recommendation [ECF
No. 39] in its entirety, with the exception of the time Plaintiff Jean-Elie Uriel Charlemagne (“Plaintiff”)
has to amend the complaint.
“In order to challenge the findings and recommendations of the magistrate judge, a party must
file written objections which shall specifically identify the portions of the proposed findings and
recommendation to which objection is made and the specific basis for objection.” Macort v. Prem, Inc.,
208 F. App'x 781, 783 (11th Cir. 2006) (cleaned up). The objections must also present “supporting
legal authority.” L. Mag. J.R. 4(b). Once a district court receives “objections meeting the specificity
requirement set out above,” it must “make a de novo determination of those portions of the report

to which objection is made and may accept, reject, or modify in whole or in part, the findings or
recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” Macort, 208 F. App'x at 783–84 (cleaned up). To
the extent a party fails to object to parts of the magistrate judge's report, those portions are reviewed
for clear error. Id. at 784 (cleaned up).
Plaintiff has not submitted any objections to Judge Goodman’s report and recommendation,
and the time to do so has passed. As such, the Court has reviewed the report and recommendation
for clear error only. Upon this review, the Court finds not only no clear error but also notes that
Judge Goodman’s report is thorough, cogent, and compelling. Therefore, the Court affirms and
adopts the report and recommendation [ECF No. 39] in its entirety, with the exception of the time
Plaintiff has to amend the complaint.
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED Defendants’ Renewed Motion for More Definite
Statement [ECF No. 28] is GRANTED. Plaintiff shall file an amended complaint no later than May
30, 2024, that cures the deficiencies as stated in Judge Goodman’s report and recommendation. If
Plaintiff does not cure the deficiencies in the complaint by May 30, 2024, the Court will dismiss the
case without further notice for failure to comply with Court order. Furthermore, the Clerk is directed
to TERMINATE the following pending motions as MOOT:
1. ECF No. 19 Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Complaint for Failure to State a Claim.
2. ECF No. 38 Expedited Motion for Sanctions against all Defendants.
DONE AND ORDERED in the Southern District of Florida on May 7, 2024.

cc:

counsel of record