ALEXANDER JUSTIN MCAFEE
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA ATTORNEY GENERAL, ET AL.
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Pro se plaintiff Alexander McAfee's complaint against the Florida Attorney General and other state officials was dismissed for failure to comply with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8 and 10, and for improper venue. The court granted leave to amend, requiring McAfee to cure the deficiencies by December 23, 2025.
The complaint fails to comply with Federal Rules 8 and 10 as a shotgun pleading, lacks proper venue in the Middle District of Florida, and is dismissed with leave to amend. McAfee must file an amended complaint by December 23, 2025, addressing the pleading deficiencies and demonstrating proper venue, or the action will be dismissed.
[1] A district court must conduct a de novo review of a magistrate judge's legal conclusions, even absent an objection.
[2] A district court may adopt a magistrate judge's report and recommendation absent a timely and specific objection.
Previewing 2 of 6 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“the complaint is a shotgun pleading that fails to adhere to Rules 8 and 10 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure”
Establishes the primary basis for dismissal—failure to comply with pleading standards.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAlexander McAfee, proceeding pro se, filed a complaint against the State of Florida Attorney General and other defendants in the Middle District of Fl…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Shotgun Pleading cases and more on FLexlaw
The United States Magistrate Judge recommends, R. & R. (Doc. 3), dismissing pro se plaintiff Alexander McAfee's complaint, (Doc. 1), with leave to amend. The deadline to object has passed without an objection.
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). If a 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 of that factual issue. Stokes v. Singletary, 952 F. 2d 1567, 1576 (11th Cir. 1992). The district court reviews legal conclusions de novo, even absent 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. 2019).
Absent an objection and after reviewing the factual allegations and legal conclusions, the Court adopts the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation. As explained in the Report and Recommendation, the complaint is a shotgun pleading that fails to adhere to Rules 8 and 10 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See R. & R. at 3. The complaint forces the Court and defendants to “sift through a multitude of irrelevant information” to determine what is material to the claims asserted. Id. at 4. Lastly, the complaint fails to demonstrate that venue in this district is appropriate since the events giving rise to the claim occurred in Gainesville, Florida. Id. at 5.
Accordingly, the following is ORDERED:
1. The Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (Doc. 3) is ADOPTED and made a part of this Order for all purposes.
2. McAfee's Complaint (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED.
3. No later than December 23, 2025, McAfee may file an amended complaint addressing the deficiencies identified in the Report and Recommendation. Should he file an amended complaint, McAfee must include allegations showing that venue in this district is appropriate. If McAfee fails to file an amended complaint, or files another shotgun complaint, this action will be dismissed.
ORDERED in Tampa, Florida, on December 9, 2025.
Kathryn Kimball Mizelle United States District Judge
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Marina Cooper-Houston v. S. Ry. Co., 37 F.3d 603 (11th Cir. 1994)
- Durham Eldon Stokes v. Singletary, 952 F.2d 1567 (11th Cir. 1992)
- Ashworth v. Glades Cnty. Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs, 379 F. Supp. 3d 1244 (M.D. Fla. 2019)