Nigel Lucombe v. Harborview Capital Holdings L.L.C.

• Court: District Court, M.D. Florida
• Decided: November 10, 2025
• Docket: 8:25-cv-00688
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION

NIGEL LUCOMBE,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 8:25-cv-688-KKM-AAS

HARBORVIEW CAPITAL HOLDINGS L.L.C.,

Defendant.

ORDER In an October 8, 2025 report (Doc. 15), the United States Magistrate Judge recommends denial of pro se Plaintiff Nigel Lucombe’s motion for default judgment (Doc. 13). The deadline to object has passed without an objection. I adopt the Report and Recommendation. I also dismiss the complaint without prejudice and give leave to amend. After conducting a careful and complete review of the findings and recommendations, a district judge may accept, reject, or modify a magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). If a party files a timely and specific objection to a finding of fact by a magistrate judge, the district court must conduct a de novo review of that factual issue. Stokes v. Singletary, 952 F.2d 1567, 1576 (11th Cir. 1992). The district court reviews legal conclusions de novo, even absent an objection. See Cooper-Houston v. S. Ry. Co., 37 F.3d 603, 604 (11th Cir. 1994); Ashworth v. Glades Cnty. Bd. of Cnty. Comm’rs, 379 F. Supp. 3d 1244, 1246 (M.D. Fla. 2019).

Absent an objection and after reviewing the factual allegations and legal conclusions, the Court adopts the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation. Lucombe’s complaint is a shotgun pleading as each count incorporates “the allegations of all preceding counts, causing each successive

to carry all that came before and the last count to be a combination of the entire complaint.” Weiland v. Palm Beach Cnty. Sheriff's Off., 792 F.3d 1313, 1321 (11th Cir. 2015). Also, Lucombe fails to plead elements required to state a claim under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). See, e.g. R&R at *6.

Accordingly, the following is ORDERED: 1. The Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 15) is ADOPTED and made a part of this Order for all purposes. 2. Plaintiff Nigel Lucombe’s Motion for Entry of Default Judgment

(Doc. 13) is DENIED. 3. Lucombe’s complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice. 4. Lucombe may file an Amended Complaint no later than November 26, 2025. If Lucombe fails to amend the complaint or

submits another shotgun pleading, this action will be dismissed without further notice. ORDERED in Tampa, Florida, on November 10, 2025.

stad 4 Mizelle United States District Judge