Brown v. Hillsborough County Sheriff's Office

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION

LAVAL RASHAD BROWN,

Plaintiff, v. Case No: 8:25-cv-854-WFJ-TGW

HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE, et al.,

Defendants. /

ORDER

Before the Court is the United States Magistrate Judge’s report recommending that Plaintiff Laval Brown’s pro se amended complaint (Dkt. 5) be dismissed and stricken from the record. Dkt. 9. In response, Plaintiff filed objections. Dkt. 12. When a party makes timely and specific objections to the report and recommendation of the magistrate judge, the district judge shall conduct a de novo review of the portions of the record to which objection is made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); Jeffrey S. State Bd. of Educ. of State of Ga., 896 F.2d 507, 512 (11th Cir. 1990). After such independent review, the Court may accept, reject, or modify the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); Macort v. Prem., Inc., 208 F. App’x 781, 783–84 (11th Cir. 2006) (citing published opinion). The Magistrate Judge, in a thorough and well-reasoned analysis, found that the amended complaint (Dkt. 5) fails to satisfy basic pleading requirements in its

factual or legal allegations and to state a cognizable claim. Dkt. 9. It contains false, scurrilous, and impertinent matter and mocks the State Attorney’s Office. Id. at 3. Having conducted a de novo and independent review of the file, and for the

sound reasons explained in the Report and Recommendation, the Court rules as follows: 1. Plaintiff’s objections (Dkt. 12) are overruled. 2. The Report and Recommendation (Dkt. 9) is adopted, confirmed, and

approved in all respects and made a part of this order. 3. Plaintiff’s amended complaint (Dkt. 5) is dismissed and stricken from the record.

4. The Clerk is directed to terminate any pending motions and to close the case. DONE and ORDERED in Tampa, Florida on June 18, 2025.

s/William F. Jung WILLIAM F. JUNG UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Copies furnished to: Plaintiff, pro se