Jewel A. Josiah v. Clyde A. Stvalle

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION JEWEL A. JOSIAH,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No: 8:26-cv-01848-WFJ-CPT

CLYDE A. STVALLE,

Defendant. /

ORDER

Before the Court is pro se Plaintiff Jewel A. Josiah’s Motion to Proceed in forma pauperis, Dkt. 2, and Motion to Supplement. Dkt. 3. United States Magistrate Judge Christopher P. Tuite issued a report and recommendation that Plaintiff’s motions be denied and that Plaintiff’s Complaint be dismissed without prejudice. Dkt. 4. The Report and Recommendation is deemed unopposed, as no objections have been filed and the time for doing so has passed. See Local Rules 3.01(d). “[I]n determining whether to accept, reject, or modify the magistrate’s report and recommendations, the district court has the duty to conduct a careful and complete review.” Williams v. Wainwright, 681 F.2d 732, 732 (11th Cir. 1982) (per curiam) (citation omitted); see 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). If a party objects to a report and recommendation, the 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). However, if no such objections are filed, the district court reviews the factual findings of the report and recommendation for “clear error,” but

reviews its legal conclusions de novo. See Macort v. Prem, Inc., 208 F. App’x 781, 784 (11th Cir. 2006); see also Ashworth v. Glades Cnty. Bd. of Cnty. Comm’rs, 379 F. Supp. 3d 1244, 1246 (M.D. Fla. 2019) (citing Cooper-Houston v. S. Ry. Co., 37

F.3d 603, 604 (11th Cir. 1994)). The Magistrate Judge found that Plaintiff’s failure to complete item nine on the standard IFP form—concerning whether she expects any major changes in monthly income during the next twelve months—renders this Court unable to make

a fully informed determination as to whether Plaintiff is indigent for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915. See Dkt. 4 at 4–5. Additionally, the Magistrate Judge determined that: (1) Plaintiff’s failure to either cite to federal law or to plead facts sufficient to

establish diversity of citizenship and an amount in controversy above $75,000 in her Complaint renders this Court without subject matter jurisdiction over the matter; and (2) Plaintiff’s “bare-bones” Complaint violates Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8 and 10. See id. at 5–10. Finally, the Magistrate Judge found that Plaintiff’s attempt

to supplement the Complaint with documents related to events that happened before she filed her Complaint violates Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(d). See id. at 10. Upon careful consideration, the Court agrees with Judge Tuite’s thorough and well- reasoned factual findings and legal conclusions and adopts the Report and Recommendation.

The Eleventh Circuit is clear that this Court must give a pro se plaintiff, “at least one chance to amend the complaint before the district court dismisses the action with prejudice.” Woldeab v. Dekalb Cnty. Bd. of Educ., 885 F.3d 1289, 1291 (11th

Cir. 2018) (citation omitted). Plaintiff may make one last attempt at filing a complaint, however, the Court warns that any subsequent complaint that fails to sufficiently plead subject matter jurisdiction and comply with the pleading standard set out in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure will be dismissed with prejudice. See

id.; Silberman v. Mia. Dade Transit, 927 F.3d 1123, 1132 (11th Cir. 2019). CONCLUSION Having performed an independent review of the file, and for the sound reasons

explained in the Report and Recommendation, it is hereby ORDERED and ADJUDGED that: 1. The Report and Recommendation, Dkt. 4, 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 without prejudice. 4. Plaintiff’s Motion to Supplement, Dkt. 3, is DENIED. 5. Plaintiff has twenty-one (21) days from the date of this Order to file an amended complaint addressing the problems with her complaint, and either

pay the filing fee, or file an amended motion to proceed in forma pauperis. If Plaintiff fails to do so, the Court will dismiss the case with prejudice. DONE and ORDERED in Tampa, Florida, on September 1, 2026.

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