Coutard v. Universal Music Group

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION STORM COUTARD,

Plaintiff, v. Case No: 8:25-cv-2039-WFJ-AEP UNIVERSAL MUSIC GROUP, et al.,

Defendants. / ORDER

Before the Court is the United States Magistrate Judge’s report recommending that Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Dkt. 2) be denied and Plaintiff ’s pro se complaint (Dkt. 1) be dismissed. Dkt. 6. The time for filing objections has passed. Absent objection, the Court conducts a “careful and complete” review of the report and recommendation. Williams v. Wainwright, 681 F.2d 732, 732 (11th Cir. 1982 (per curiam) (quotation citation omitted). “Clear error” review applies to portions of the report and recommendation to which no objection is made. Macort v. Prem, Inc., 208 F. App’x 781, 784 (11th Cir. 2006) (per curiam) (quotation citation omitted). Legal conclusions are reviewed de novo in the absence of an objection. See LeCroy v. McNeil, 397 F. App’x 554, 556 (11th Cir. 2010) (citation omitted); Cooper-Houston v. S. Ry. Co., 37 F.3d 603, 604 (11th Cir. 1994). The Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the Magistrate Judge’s report and recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Williams, 681 F.2d at 732. The Magistrate Judge, in a thorough and well-reasoned analysis, found that the complaint (Dkt. 1) fails to allege a sufficient basis to support a reasonable

inference that any of the defendants are liable for the stated misconduct. Dkt. 6. The Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that any further attempts would be futile, as this is not Plaintiff’s first attempt to allege a plausible claim based on the

same conduct. See Storm Coutard v. Universal Music Group, et al., 8:25-cv-1275- WFJ-LSG (permitting two amendments). Having performed 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. The Report and Recommendation (Dkt. 6) is adopted, confirmed, and approved in all respects and made a part of this order. 2. Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Dkt. 2) is denied.

3. Plaintiff’s complaint (Dkt. 1) is dismissed. 4. Plaintiff’s motion to appoint counsel (Dkt. 4) is denied as moot. 5. The Clerk is directed to terminate any pending motions and to close the case.

DONE and ORDERED in Tampa, Florida on September 3, 2025.

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