Christina D. Thundathil v. United States of America, Bay Care Health Care d/b/a Winter Haven Hospital, City of Winter Haven, Police of Winter Haven, Polk County Board of County Commissioners, and Polk County Sheriff Grady Judd

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION

CHRISTINA D. THUNDATHIL,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No: 8:25-cv-1564-MSS-SPF

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, BAY CARE HEALTH CARE D/B/A WINTER HAVEN HOSPITAL, CITY OF WINTER HAVEN, POLICE OF WINTER HAVEN, POLK COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, AND POLK COUNTY SHERIFF GRADY JUDD,

Defendants.

ORDER THIS CAUSE comes before the Court for consideration of United States Magistrate Judge Sean P. Flynn’s Report and Recommendation dated October 21, 2025, which recommended that this action be dismissed without prejudice and Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis be denied without prejudice. (Dkt. 7 at 12-13) Judge Flynn found that Plaintiff’s Complaint is a shotgun pleading, (Id. at 5-7), Plaintiff failed to state a claim against Defendants based on several of causes of action, (Id. at 7-12), and Plaintiff failed to allege information sufficient for the Court to reach any substantive findings on whether a claim has been stated under several additional statutes and common law causes of action mentioned in the Complaint, like the FTCA, Title VII, the ADA, the Rehabilitation Act, negligence, and medical malpractice. (Id. at 12 n.5) Accordingly, Judge Flynn recommended the action be

dismissed without prejudice and Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis be denied without prejudice. (Id. at 12) Plaintiff has not filed an objection to the Report and Recommendation, and the deadline for doing so has passed. In the Eleventh Circuit, a district judge may accept, reject, or modify the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation after conducting a careful and

complete review of the findings and recommendations. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Williams v. Wainwright, 681 F.2d 732, 732 (11th Cir. 1982). A district judge “shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).

This requires that the district judge “give fresh consideration to those issues to which specific objection has been made by a party.” Jeffrey S. v. State Bd. of Educ., 896 F.2d 507, 512 (11th Cir.1990) (quoting H.R. 1609, 94th Cong. § 2 (1976)). In the absence of specific objections, there is no requirement that a district judge review factual findings de novo, Garvey v. Vaughn, 993 F.2d 776, 779 n.9 (11th Cir. 1993), and the

court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings and recommendations. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The district judge reviews legal conclusions de novo, even in the absence of an objection. See Cooper-Houston v. Southern Ry., 37 F.3d 603, 604 (11th Cir. 1994). Upon consideration of the Report and Recommendation, in conjunction with an independent examination of the file, the Court concludes that the Report and Recommendation should be adopted, confirmed, and approved in all respects. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that: 1. The Report and Recommendation, (Dkt. 7), is CONFIRMED and ADOPTED as part of this Order. 2. This action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE and Plaintiffs motion to proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 3. Within FOURTEEN (14) days of the date of this Order, Plaintiff may file a renewed request to proceed in forma pauperis and an amended complaint that cures the defects identified in the Report and Recommendation. Plaintiffs failure to file an amended complaint by the deadline set in this Order may result in dismissal of this case with prejudice and without further notice. DONE and ORDERED in Tampa, Florida, this 13th day of November 2025.

MARY\S_SGRIVEN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Copies furnished to: Counsel of Record Any Unrepresented Person