Daniel Diaz v. Michael Bigelow, d/b/a Comstruct Services Inc.

• Court: District Court, M.D. Florida
• Decided: November 17, 2025
• Docket: 5:25-cv-00447
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA OCALA DIVISION

DANIEL DIAZ,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 5:25-cv-447-TPB-PRL

MICHAEL BIGELOW, d/b/a Comstruct Services Inc.,

Defendant. ______________________________/

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION This matter is before the Court on consideration of the report and recommendation of Philip R. Lammens, United States Magistrate Judge, entered on October 28, 2025. (Doc. 5). Judge Lammens recommends that Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 2) be denied, and Plaintiff’s complaint (Doc. 1) be dismissed, with leave to amend. No objection to the report and recommendation has been filed, and the time to object has expired. After conducting a careful and complete review of the findings and recommendations, a district judge may accept, reject, or modify the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983); Williams v. Wainwright, 681 F.2d 732 (11th Cir. 1982). A district court must “make a de novo determination of those portions of the [report and recommendation] to which an objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). When no objection is filed, a court reviews the report and recommendation for clear error. Macort v. Prem, Inc., 208 F. App’x 781, 784 (11th Cir. 2006); Nettles v. Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404, 409 (5th Cir. 1982).

Upon due consideration of the record, including Judge Lammens’s well- reasoned report and recommendation, the Court adopts the report and recommendation. The motion to proceed in forma pauperis is denied without prejudice, and the complaint is dismissed without prejudice. Plaintiff is granted leave to file an amended complaint to correct the deficiencies identified in the report and recommendation, and should he decide to file an amended complaint, Plaintiff

is directed to file a new motion to proceed without costs along with the amended complaint. Accordingly, it is ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED: (1) Judge Lammens’s report and recommendation (Doc. 5) is AFFIRMED and ADOPTED and INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE into this Order for all purposes, including appellate review.

(2) Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 2) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. (3) The complaint (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, with leave to amend. (4) Plaintiff is directed to file an amended complaint and motion to proceed without costs on or before December 1, 2025. Failure to file an amended complaint as directed will result in this Order becoming a final judgment. See Auto. Alignment & Body Serv., Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 953 F.3d 707, 719-20 (11th Cir. 2020). DONE and ORDERED in Chambers, in Ocala, Florida, this 17th day of November, 2025.

TOM BARBER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Page 3 of 3