GIOIA

v.

53-2025MH-001459 -A000BA

Objections to the Report were due by an extended deadline of September 15, 2025 [ECF No. 6]. No party has filed objections, and the time to do so has expired [ECF No. 6].

To challenge the findings and recommendations of a magistrate judge, a party must file specific written objections identifying the portions of the proposed findings and recommendation to which objection is made. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); Heath v. Jones, 863 F. 2d 815, 822 (11th Cir. 1989); Macort v. Prem, Inc., 208 F. App'x 781, 784 (11th Cir. 2006). A district court reviews de novo those portions of the report to which objection is made and may accept, reject, or modify in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). To the extent a party fails to object to parts of the magistrate judge's report, the Court may accept the recommendation so long as there is no clear error on the face of the record. Macort, 208 F. App’x at 784. Legal conclusions are reviewed de novo, even in the absence of an objection. See LeCroy v. McNeil, 397 F. App'x 554, 556 (11th Cir. 2010); Cooper-Houston v. S. Ry. Co., 37 F. 3d 603, 604 (11th Cir. 1994).

Following appropriate review, the Court finds the well-reasoned Report to contain no clear error of fact or law. Accordingly, for the reasons set forth in the Report [ECF No. 4], it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:

1. The Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 4] is ACCEPTED. a. Pursuant to the Court's inherent authority to control its docket and prevent abuse of the judicial process, Plaintiff Michael Patrick Gioia is DECLARED a

CASE NO. 25-80967-CIV-CANNON/Reinhart vexatious litigant. Plaintiff is enjoined from filing further pleadings or motions in this action without leave of the Court or the signature of an attorney authorized to practice in this district. More generally, Plaintiff shall not file any new action in this district against Defendant Lakeland County Mental Hospital or its agents or successors, without prior approval from the Court or unless such filings are signed by an attorney authorized to practice before this Court.

b. The Clerk is DIRECTED to refuse any further pleadings or motions in accordance with this Order.

2. The Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis [ECF No. 3] is DENIED.

3. Plaintiff's Complaint [ECF No. 1] is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, but without leave to replead.²

4. The Clerk shall MAIL a copy of this Order to Plaintiff at the address listed below.

5. The Clerk is directed to CLOSE this case.

ORDERED in Chambers at Fort Pierce, Florida this 17th day of September 2025.

AILEEN M. CANNON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

cc: Michael Patrick Gioia 125 S. State Rd 7, 104-322 Wellington, Florida 33414

[fn 1]: The Report chronicles Plaintiff's vexatious history in this district, including "eight consecutive complaints (including the pending Complaint []) in 2025 and a total of ten complaints between 2024 and 2025—four of which were filed on the same day” [ECF No. 4 p. 4 (collecting case citations)]. All of Plaintiffs “complaints either stem from or are related to petitions filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 which were later dismissed” [ECF No. 4 p. 4].

[fn 2]: The Court determines that any amendment to Plaintiff's Complaint in this action would be futile given the frivolous nature of the complaint and the numerous cases previously filed (and pending) in this district regarding identical subject matter (his Florida state habeas petition) [see ECF No. 4 p. 4].