JIMENEZ
v.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY
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.
Plaintiff Jimenez challenged the District Court's adoption of a Magistrate Judge's recommendation to dismiss his complaint as an impermissible shotgun pleading. The court affirmed the dismissal, finding Jimenez's opposition failed to address the deficiencies in his pleading despite being afforded liberal construction as a pro se litigant.
The District Court affirmed the Magistrate Judge's recommendation and granted the motion to dismiss. Although pro se pleadings are held to a less stringent standard and liberally construed, Jimenez's opposition failed to provide any valid basis to overrule the recommendation and merely repeated the same deficiencies identified in the original complaint.
[1] A complaint that is conclusory, vague, and immaterial, and not obviously connected to any particular cause of action, constitutes an impermissible shotgun pleading.
[2] A pro se litigant's pleadings are held to a less stringent standard and are liberally construed.
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“because Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, his pleadings are held to a less stringent standard and be liberally construed”
Establishes the applicable standard for reviewing pro se pleadings
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJimenez, proceeding pro se, filed a complaint against the U.S. Department of Treasury. A Magistrate Judge recommended dismissal of the complaint as an…
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 Dismissal Of Complaint cases and more on FLexlaw
THE MATTER was referred to the Honorable Eduardo I. Sanchez, United States Magistrate Judge, pursuant to 28 U.S.C § 636 for a ruling on all pre-trial, non-dispositive matters, and for a Report and Recommendation (“R&R") on all dispositive matters. (ECF Nos. 6, 19). Judge Sanchez filed an R&R on Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 22), recommending that Defendant's Motion be granted and that Plaintiff's Complaint be dismissed without prejudice as an impermissible shotgun pleading. (ECF No. 26). The R&R instructed the parties to file their objections, if any, to the R&R by March 5, 2025. (Id.)
Plaintiff did not file objections, but instead filed an "Opposition to Motion to Dismiss." (ECF No. 27.) However, because Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, his pleadings are held to a less stringent standard and be liberally construed. Trawinski v. United Technologies, 313 F. 3d 1295, 1297 (11th Cir. 2002). Accordingly, this Court construed Plaintiff's Opposition to Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 27), as an objection to the R&R, but finds that it fails to provide any valid basis to overrule the R&R. In fact, it does not even directly address the R&R or Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, but instead provides more of the same “conclusory, vague, and immaterial facts not obviously connected to any particular cause of action” as are found within the initial complaint. (ECF No. 27.) After conducting a de novo review of the record and Objections, (ECF No. 27), this Court agrees with Defendant and Judge Sanchez that Plaintiff's complaint is due to be dismissed as an impermissible shotgun pleading. It is hereby ORDERED and ADJUDGED that:
1. Judge Sanchez's Report and Recommendation, (ECF No. 26), is AFFIRMED and
ADOPTED.
2. Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, (ECF No. 22), is GRANTED.
3. Plaintiff's Complaint, (ECF No. 1), is DISMISSED without prejudice.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this day of March, 2025.
JOSE E MARTINEZ
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Copies provided to: Magistrate Judge Sanchez All Counsel of Record Domingo A. Jimenez, pro se
2