Morales-Wagner v. City of Jacksonville, Florida

CourtDistrict Court, M.D. Florida
DecidedDecember 3, 2024
Docket3:24-cv-00106
StatusUnknown

This text of Morales-Wagner v. City of Jacksonville, Florida (Morales-Wagner v. City of Jacksonville, Florida) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, M.D. Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Morales-Wagner v. City of Jacksonville, Florida, (M.D. Fla. 2024).

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JACKSONVILLE DIVISION

ANA M. MORALES-WAGNER,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.: 3:24-cv-106-WWB-SJH

CITY OF JACKSONVILLE, FLORIDA,

Defendant. / ORDER THIS CAUSE is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs (“Motion to Proceed,” Doc. 2). United States Magistrate Judge Joel B. Toomey issued a Report and Recommendation (Doc. 11), in which he recommends that the Motion to Proceed be denied as moot and this case be dismissed without prejudice. After an independent de novo review of the record, and noting that no objections were timely filed, this Court agrees entirely with the findings of fact and conclusions of law in the Report and Recommendation. Also before the Court is Plaintiff’s Notice (Doc. 13), which the Court construes as a motion for leave to amend. Therein, Plaintiff states that she is seeking permission to amend her pleading, but she fails to otherwise state a legal or factual basis for amendment. Additionally, Plaintiff fails to “set forth the substance of the proposed amendment or attach a copy of the proposed amendment.” Wiand v. ATC Brokers Ltd., 96 F.4th 1303, 1312 (11th Cir. 2024) (quotation omitted). Thus, the Court cannot assess the merits of Plaintiff’s request for amendment. The Court also notes that Plaintiff has been given several opportunities to correct the deficiencies in her pleadings in this case and has failed to do so. (See Doc. Nos. 7, 9, 10); see also Bryant v. Dupree, 252 F.3d 1161, 1163 (11th Cir. 2001) (“A district court need not, however, allow an amendment... where there has been . . . repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed.”); Makere v. Early, No. 22-13613, 2023 WL 7130938, at *3 (11th Cir. Oct. 30, 2023); Hesed-El v. Aldridge Pite, LLP, No. 20-14782, 2021 WL 5504969, at *6—7 (11th Cir. Nov. 24, 2021). Accordingly, Plaintiff's request will be denied. Therefore, itis ORDERED and ADJUDGED as follows: 1. The Report and Recommendation (Doc. 11) is ADOPTED and CONFIRMED and made a part of this Order. 2. Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed (Doc. 2) is DENIED as moot. 3. Plaintiff's Notice (Doc. 13) is DENIED. 4. This case is DISMISSED without prejudice. 5. The Clerk is directed to terminate all other pending motions and close this case. DONE AND ORDERED in Jacksonville, Florida on December 2, 2024.

UNITED STATES T JUDG Copies furnished to: Unrepresented Party

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

Related

Burton W. Wiand v. ATC Brokers Ltd.
96 F.4th 1303 (Eleventh Circuit, 2024)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Morales-Wagner v. City of Jacksonville, Florida, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/morales-wagner-v-city-of-jacksonville-florida-flmd-2024.