ELIAHU ABUKASIS
v.
ELI RAN, 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.
The court held that the Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint should be dismissed with prejudice for failure to adequately allege subject matter jurisdiction.
Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint after previous attempts were dismissed. The Magistrate Judge recommended dismissal for lack of subject matt…
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 Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 cases and more on FLexlaw
THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on Magistrate Judge Lauren Fleischer Louis's Report and Recommendation (the "Report"). [ECF No. 104].¹ In her Report, Judge Louis recommends that Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint, [ECF No. 93], be dismissed with prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction or, in the alternative, for failure to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8. On October 8, 2025, Plaintiff filed objections to the Report. [ECF No. 110].
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 objection is 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). Any portions of the report and recommendation to which no specific
objection is made are reviewed only for clear error. Liberty Am. Ins. Grp., Inc. v. WestPoint Underwriters, L.L.C., 199 F. Supp. 2d 1271, 1276 (M.D. Fla. 2001); accord Macort v. Prem, Inc., 208 F. App'x 781, 784 (11th Cir. 2006).
In her Report, Judge Louis found that “Plaintiff, on his third attempt, has failed to create a plausible inference of subject matter jurisdiction." [ECF No. 104].² Alternatively, she found that Plaintiff failed to meet the pleading standards proscribed by Rule 8. Id. The Court has reviewed the Report and Plaintiffs objections and has conducted a de novo review of the record. Based on this review, the Court agrees with Judge Louis's well-reasoned finding that the Second Amended Complaint fails to adequately allege this Court's subject matter jurisdiction and should be dismissed with prejudice.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, after careful consideration, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
(1) Judge Louis's Report and Recommendation, [ECF No. 104], is ADOPTED in full;
(2) Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint, [ECF No. 93], is DISMISSED with prejudice.
(3) This case is CLOSED, and all pending motions are DENIED as MOOT.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this 10th day of October, 2025.
DARRIN P. GAYLES
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- United States v. Schultz, 565 F.3d 1353 (11th Cir. 2009)
- Liberty Am. Ins. Grp., Inc. v. Westpoint Underwriters, L.L.C., 2001 WL 1850837 (M.D. Fla. 2001)