Jimenez v. U.S. Department of Treasury

S.D. Florida

Jimenez v. U.S. Department of Treasury

DecidedMarch 13, 2025

Docket1:22-cv-23620

StatusUnknown

This text of Jimenez v. U.S. Department of Treasury (Jimenez v. U.S. Department of Treasury) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Jimenez v. U.S. Department of Treasury, (S.D. Fla. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA MIAMI DIVISION Case Number: 22-23620-CIV-MARTINEZ-SANCHEZ DOMINGO A. JIMENEZ, Plaintiff,

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY, Defendant. ee ORDER ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION THE MATTER was referred to the Honorable Eduardo I. Sanchez, United States Magistrate Judge, pursuant to 28 U.S.C § 636 for a ruling on all pre-trial, non-dispositive matters, and for a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) on all dispositive matters. (ECF Nos. 6, 19). Judge Sanchez filed an R&R on Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 22), recommending that Defendant’s Motion be granted and that Plaintiff's Complaint be dismissed without prejudice as an impermissible shotgun pleading. (ECF No. 26). The R&R instructed the parties to file their objections, if any, to the R&R by March 5, 2025. Ud.) Plaintiff did not file objections, but instead filed an “Opposition to Motion to Dismiss.” (ECF No. 27.) However, because Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, his pleadings are held to a less stringent standard and be liberally construed. Trawinski vy. United Technologies, 313 F.3d 1295, 1297 (11th Cir. 2002). Accordingly, this Court construed Plaintiff's Opposition to Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 27), as an objection to the R&R, but finds that it fails to provide any valid basis to overrule the R&R. In fact, it does not even directly address the R&R or Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, but instead provides more of the same “conclusory, vague, and immaterial facts not

obviously connected to any particular cause of action” as are found within the initial complaint. (ECF No. 27.) After conducting a de novo review of the record and Objections, (ECF No. 27), this Court agrees with Defendant and Judge Sanchez that Plaintiffs complaint is due to be dismissed as an impermissible shotgun pleading. It is hereby ORDERED and ADJUDGED that: 1. Judge Sanchez’s Report and Recommendation, (ECF No. 26), is AFFIRMED and ADOPTED. 2. Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, (ECF No. 22), is GRANTED. 3. Plaintiff's Complaint, (ECF No. 1), is DISMISSED without prejudice. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this |2 day of March, 2025. ‘om JOSE ARTINEZ UNITED STATES DISTRICTJUDGE Copies provided to: Magistrate Judge Sanchez All Counsel of Record Domingo A. Jimenez, pro se

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA MIAMI DIVISION Case Number: 22-23620-CIV-MARTINEZ-SANCHEZ DOMINGO A. JIMENEZ, Plaintiff,

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY, Defendant. ee ORDER ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION THE MATTER was referred to the Honorable Eduardo I. Sanchez, United States Magistrate Judge, pursuant to 28 U.S.C § 636 for a ruling on all pre-trial, non-dispositive matters, and for a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) on all dispositive matters. (ECF Nos. 6, 19). Judge Sanchez filed an R&R on Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 22), recommending that Defendant’s Motion be granted and that Plaintiff's Complaint be dismissed without prejudice as an impermissible shotgun pleading. (ECF No. 26). The R&R instructed the parties to file their objections, if any, to the R&R by March 5, 2025. Ud.) Plaintiff did not file objections, but instead filed an “Opposition to Motion to Dismiss.” (ECF No. 27.) However, because Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, his pleadings are held to a less stringent standard and be liberally construed. Trawinski vy. United Technologies, 313 F.3d 1295, 1297 (11th Cir. 2002). Accordingly, this Court construed Plaintiff's Opposition to Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 27), as an objection to the R&R, but finds that it fails to provide any valid basis to overrule the R&R. In fact, it does not even directly address the R&R or Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, but instead provides more of the same “conclusory, vague, and immaterial facts not

obviously connected to any particular cause of action” as are found within the initial complaint. (ECF No. 27.) After conducting a de novo review of the record and Objections, (ECF No. 27), this Court agrees with Defendant and Judge Sanchez that Plaintiffs complaint is due to be dismissed as an impermissible shotgun pleading. It is hereby ORDERED and ADJUDGED that: 1. Judge Sanchez’s Report and Recommendation, (ECF No. 26), is AFFIRMED and ADOPTED. 2. Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, (ECF No. 22), is GRANTED. 3. Plaintiff's Complaint, (ECF No. 1), is DISMISSED without prejudice. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this |2 day of March, 2025. ‘om JOSE ARTINEZ UNITED STATES DISTRICTJUDGE Copies provided to: Magistrate Judge Sanchez All Counsel of Record Domingo A. Jimenez, pro se

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Jimenez v. U.S. Department of Treasury, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jimenez-v-us-department-of-treasury-flsd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack