JONATHAN D. HART
v.
ELAINE A. CARBUCCIA
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.
Hart sued Carbuccia, a judicial officer, for damages. The district court adopted the magistrate judge's recommendation and dismissed the case with prejudice based on judicial immunity, finding that further amendment would be futile.
The court affirmed the magistrate judge's recommendation and held that Defendant is entitled to judicial immunity. The court dismissed the Second Amended Complaint with prejudice, finding that further amendment would be futile given the judicial immunity determination.
[1] A district court may accept, reject, or modify a magistrate judge's report and recommendation.
[2] Portions of a magistrate judge's report and recommendation to which objections are made are accorded de novo review if the objections pinpoint specific findings with whic…
Previewing 2 of 4 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“Magistrate Judge Hunt recommends that this case be DISMISSED with prejudice because Defendant is entitled to judicial immunity.”
Establishes the basis for dismissal—the defendant's judicial immunity
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiff Jonathan D. Hart filed a complaint against Defendant Elaine A. Carbuccia. The complaint was amended at least twice (Second Amended Complaint…
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 Judicial Immunity cases and more on FLexlaw
This matter is before the Court upon the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation [DE 32] on Defendant's Motion to Dismiss [DE 12] and Plaintiff's Objections [DE 33]. In his thorough and well-reasoned Report and Recommendation, Magistrate Judge Hunt recommends that this case be DISMISSED with prejudice because Defendant is entitled to judicial immunity. Further, Plaintiff has been provided with multiple opportunities to amend and further amendment would be futile given the Court's finding of judicial immunity.
A district court may accept, reject, or modify a magistrate judge's report and recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Those portions of the report and recommendation to which objections are made are accorded de novo review, if those objections “pinpoint the specific findings that the party disagrees with." United States v. Schultz, 565 F. 3d 1353, 1360 (11th Cir. 2009); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3).
The Court, having considered Judge Hunt's Report, Plaintiff's objections thereto, and having conducted a de novo review of the record, agrees with Judge Hunt's well-reasoned analysis and his recommendation that this case be dismissed with prejudice.
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that:
1. The Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation to District Judge [DE 32] is AFFIRMED and ADOPTED and incorporated by reference into this Court's Order.
2. Th Second Amended Complaint [DE 10] is DISMISSED with prejudice.
3. All pending motions not otherwise ruled upon are DENIED as moot.
4. This case is CLOSED.
DONE AND ORDERED in Fort Lauderdale, Florida on this 6th day of February 2026.
RODNEY SMITH UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
cc: counsel of record