CHARLEMAGNE
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA
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 district court adopted a magistrate judge's report and recommendation granting defendants' motion for a more definite statement, finding the plaintiff's complaint insufficiently pleaded. The court gave the plaintiff until May 30, 2024 to amend the complaint or face dismissal.
The court granted the defendants' motion for a more definite statement and required the plaintiff to file an amended complaint curing the identified deficiencies by May 30, 2024, or face dismissal of the case.
[1] A party must file written objections that specifically identify the portions of a magistrate judge's report and recommendation to which objection is made and the specific…
[2] Objections to a magistrate judge's report and recommendation must present supporting legal authority.
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“In order to challenge the findings and recommendations of the magistrate judge, a party 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 objecting to magistrate recommendations and the standard of review
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiff Jean-Elie Uriel Charlemagne filed a complaint against the State of Florida and county defendants. The complaint was referred to Magistrate J…
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 Determination cases and more on FLexlaw
This matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Jonathan Goodman for all discovery disputes and non-dispositive pretrial motions [ECF No. 5]. Judge Goodman has since issued a report, recommending that the Court grant the County Defendants' Motion for a more definite statement [ECF No. 28] by default and on the merits. [ECF No. 39]. Neither party has submitted objections, and the time to do so has passed. After careful review of the filings, the applicable law, and the record, the Court adopts Judge Goodman's report and recommendation [ECF No. 39] in its entirety, with the exception of the time Plaintiff Jean-Elie Uriel Charlemagne (“Plaintiff”) has to amend the complaint.
“In order to challenge the findings and recommendations of the magistrate judge, a party 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) (cleaned up). The objections must also present “supporting legal authority.” L. Mag. J.R. 4(b). Once a district court receives “objections meeting the specificity requirement set out above,” it must “make a de novo determination of 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.” Macort, 208 F. App'x at 783–84 (cleaned up). To the extent a party fails to object to parts of the magistrate judge's report, those portions are reviewed for clear error. Id. at 784 (cleaned up).
Plaintiff has not submitted any objections to Judge Goodman's report and recommendation, and the time to do so has passed. As such, the Court has reviewed the report and recommendation for clear error only. Upon this review, the Court finds not only no clear error but also notes that Judge Goodman's report is thorough, cogent, and compelling. Therefore, the Court affirms and adopts the report and recommendation [ECF No. 39] in its entirety, with the exception of the time Plaintiff has to amend the complaint.
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED Defendants' Renewed Motion for More Definite Statement [ECF No. 28] is GRANTED. Plaintiff shall file an amended complaint no later than May 30, 2024, that cures the deficiencies as stated in Judge Goodman's report and recommendation. If Plaintiff does not cure the deficiencies in the complaint by May 30, 2024, the Court will dismiss the case without further notice for failure to comply with Court order. Furthermore, the Clerk is directed to TERMINATE the following pending motions as MOOT:
1. ECF No. 19 Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Complaint for Failure to State a Claim. 2. ECF No. 38 Expedited Motion for Sanctions against all Defendants.
DONE AND ORDERED in the Southern District of Florida on May 7, 2024.
DAVID S. LEIBOWITZ
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
cc: counsel of record