Joseph v. Beiting, Esq.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: 25-CV- 61995-WPD LUC WILSEN JOSEPH, Plaintiff, v. STEPHEN BEITING, ESQ., et al., Defendants. ___________________________________/ ORDER ADOPTING REPORT OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE; OVERRULING OBJECTIONS; CLOSING CASE THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon the May 20, 2026 Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Jared M. Strauss (the “Report”) [DE 18]. The Court has conducted a de novo review of the Report [DE 18], pro se Plaintiff Luc Wilsen Joseph (“Plaintiff”)’s “Statement to Clarify my Intentions and Concerns Regarding This Matter” [DE 19], and is otherwise fully advised in the premises. A party seeking to challenge the findings in a report and recommendation of a United States Magistrate Judge 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) (quoting Heath v. Jones, 863 F.2d 815, 822 (11th Cir. 1989)). “It is critical that the objection be sufficiently specific and not a general objection to the report.” Macort, 208 F. App’x at 784 (citing Goney v. Clark, 749 F.2d 5, 7 (3d Cir. 1984)). If a party makes a timely and specific objection to a finding in the report and recommendation, the district court must conduct a de novo review of the portions of the report to which objection is made. Macort, 208 F. App’x at 783-84; see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The district court 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 784; 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Accordingly, the Court has undertaken a de novo review of the record and Plaintiff’s Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation. The Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s conclusions in the Report that this action should be dismissed based on the reasons stated therein. Plaintiff’s objections are overruled. After dismissing Plaintiff’s original complaint as a shotgun pleading on March 25, 2026, the Magistrate Judge provided Plaintiff three weeks, until April 15, 2026, to file an amended complaint. That deadline—plus one month—passed, and no amended complaint was filed. Moreover, in his response to the Report, Plaintiff still does not attach any amended complaint or indicate that one is forthcoming. Where a party fails to adequately prosecute their case or fails to comply with court orders, as here, the Court may dismiss the action. See Gratton v. Great Am. Commc’ns, 178 F.3d 1373, 1374 (11th Cir. 1999). As the Magistrate Judge correctly noted, “[b]ecause Plaintiff has failed to prosecute his case by not following the Court’s directives and has failed to rectify the shotgun nature of his Complaint,” the action is subject to dismissal. [DE 18] p. 4. In addition, the action is dismissed for want of an operative pleading. Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: 1. The Report [DE 18] is hereby APPROVED; 2. The Objections [DE 19] are OVERRULED; 3. This action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE; 4. The Clerk is DIRECTED to CLOSE this case. 5. The Clerk shall email a copy of this Order to the Plaintiff. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Fort Lauderdale, Broward County, Florida, this 29th day of May, 2026. “4 if { FO etre zd VILLIAM P. DIMITROULEAS Magistrate Judge Strauss Lue Wilsen Joseph 3570 W. Hillsboro Blvd Apt. 103 Coconut Creek, FL 33073 440-600-4939 Email: m458007@gmail.com PRO SE