THOMAS BURGESS
v.
DEPUTY WILLIAM ROTHMAN
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.
In this civil rights case, the district court adopted a magistrate judge's recommendation and granted defendant's motion to dismiss plaintiff's amended complaint for failure to state a claim. The plaintiff was given leave to file a second amended complaint by December 19, 2025, with a warning that failure to cure the defects would result in dismissal of the entire case.
The district court agreed with the magistrate judge's recommendation that the amended complaint should be dismissed for failure to state a claim, but granted plaintiff leave to file a second amended complaint as a final opportunity to cure the pleading defects.
[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 the specific findings with…
Previewing 2 of 5 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 district court may accept, reject, or modify a magistrate judge's report and recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).”
Establishes the standard of review for magistrate judge recommendations in district court proceedings.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiff Thomas Burgess filed an amended complaint against Deputy William Rothman. A magistrate judge conducted initial review and recommended dismis…
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 Rule 11 Sanctions cases and more on FLexlaw
This matter is before the Court upon the Report and Recommendation (the "Report") of the Honorable, Bruce E. Reinhart U.S. Magistrate Judge, on Plaintiffs Amended Complaint [DE 16] and Defendant's Motion to Dismiss [DE 23]. In his thorough and well-reasoned Report, Judge Reinhart recommends that Defendant's Motion to Dismiss be granted with leave to amend. Plaintiff filed objections to the Report, however, he agrees that a second amended complaint can cure all defects.
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 Reinhart's Report, Petitioner's objections thereto, and having conducted a de novo review of the record, agrees with Judge Reinhart's well-reasoned analysis and his recommendation that the Amended Complaint be dismissed for failure to state a claim. Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that:
1) The Report and Recommendation [DE 41] is AFFIRMED and ADOPTED and incorporated by reference into this Court's Order.
2) Defendant's Motion to Dismiss [DE 23] is GRANTED.
3) Plaintiff's Amended Complaint [DE 16] is DISMISSED. Plaintiff may file a second amended complaint as one final attempt to sufficiently plead his claims by December 19, 2025. Failure to file an amended complaint that complies with this Order and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, including Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, shall result in the dismissal of this case. [fn 1]
DONE and ORDERED in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, this 5th day of December, 2025.
RODNEY SMITH UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
cc: All counsel of record
[fn 1]: It appears that Plaintiff has already filed a Second Amended Complaint, before the Court granted leave to amend [DE 44]. The Court will accept Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint; however, this Court's instruction that it must meet the pleading standards under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure remains in effect.