KAREN BISHOP
v.
BRADLEY HARPER, GEORGE LAGOS, SHAWNA LAMB, MAY LEE DEJESUS, CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH
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.
The Court adopts the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, overrules Plaintiff's objections, and dismisses the Second Amended Complaint with prejudice.
[1] A party challenging a magistrate judge's report and recommendation must file specific written objections identifying the portions of the report and the basis for the obje…
[2] A general objection to a magistrate judge's report and recommendation is insufficient to warrant de novo review.
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“A party seeking to challenge the findings in a report and recommendation of a United States Magistrate Judge 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."”
Establishes the procedural requirement for parties objecting to magistrate judge recommendations.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint, to which a Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation for dismissal. Plaintiff filed objections t…
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 De Novo Review Of Magistrate Judge'S Report cases and more on FLexlaw
THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon the January 15, 2026 Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge William Matthewman (the “Report”) [DE 51]. The Court has conducted a de novo review of the Report [DE 51], Plaintiff Karen L. Bishop (“Plaintiff")'s Objection to Report and Recommendation [DE 52], and is otherwise fully advised in the premises.
A party seeking to challenge the findings in a report and recommendation of a United States Magistrate Judge 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) (quoting Heath v. Jones, 863 F. 2d 815, 822 (11th Cir. 1989)). “It is critical that the objection be sufficiently specific and not a general objection to the report.” Macort, 208 F. App'x at 784 (citing Goney v. Clark, 749 F. 2d 5, 7 (3d Cir. 1984)). If a party makes a timely and specific
1
objection to a finding in the report and recommendation, the district court must conduct a de novo review of the portions of the report to which objection is made. Macort, 208 F. App’x at 783-84; see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The district court 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 784; 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Accordingly, the Court has undertaken a de novo review of the record and Plaintiff's Objections to Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation.
The Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge's conclusions in the Report that the Second Amended Complaint should be dismissed based on the reasons stated therein. Plaintiff's objections are overruled. Moreover, the Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that the dismissal should be with prejudice, as the Court has already provided Plaintiff with two chances to replead her complaint and has instructed her on how to do so.
For the foregoing reasons, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: 1. The Report [DE 51] is hereby APPROVED; 2. The Second Amended Complaint [DE 46] is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE; 3. The Clerk shall CLOSE this case and DENY AS MOOT any pending motions. 4. The Clerk shall email a copy of this order to the Plaintiff.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Fort Lauderdale, Broward County, Florida, this 28th day of January, 2026.
WILLIAM P. DIMITROULEAS United States District Judge
Copies furnished to: Magistrate Judge Matthewman Karen Bishop at email: [email protected]
2
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Heath v. Jones, 863 F.2d 815 (11th Cir. 1989)
- Goney v. Clark, 749 F.2d 5 (3d Cir. 1984)