Ronel Jaques v. Anthony Uslund, Et al.

• Court: District Court, S.D. Florida
• Decided: November 17, 2025
• Docket: 0:25-cv-60715
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA WEST PALM BEACH DIVISION

CASE NO. 0:25-cv-60715-EA

Ronel Jaques,

Plaintiff,

v.

Anthony Uslund, Et al.,

Defendants. __________________________________/

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMNEDATION

This cause comes before the Court on the report and recommendation that this case be dismissed without prejudice [7]. In April 2025, the plaintiff initiated this lawsuit and filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. ECF No. 1, 3. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), Magistrate Judge Hunt denied the motion to proceed in forma pauperis because the complaint failed to state a cause of action. ECF No. 5. As part of this denial, Judge Hunt ordered the plaintiff to file, within 30 days of the issuance of the order, an amended complaint and a renewed motion to proceed in forma pauperis. ECF No. 5. After the deadline to do this passed without the plaintiff filing an amended complaint or moving to proceed in forma pauperis—or otherwise moving for an extension of time—Judge Hunt issued a report and recommendation recommending the case be dismissed for (1) failure to state a cause of action and (2) failure to comply with the order requiring the plaintiff to file an amended complaint and renewed motion to proceed in forma pauperis. ECF No. 7. The plaintiff was given 14 days to object to this report and recommendation. See ECF No. 7; 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (“Within fourteen days after being served with a copy, any party may serve and file written objections to such proposed findings and recommendations as provided by rules of court.”). The plaintiff, however, did not object to the report and recommendation.

Because the plaintiff did not timely object to the report and recommendation, the Court declines to review whether the complaint states a valid cause of action. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (“A judge of the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” (emphasis added)). Additionally, the Court agrees that this case should be dismissed because the plaintiff failed to comply with the order requiring the plaintiff to file an amended complaint and renewed motion to proceed in forma pauperis or, alternatively, lack of prosecution. See Dynes v. Army Air Force Exchange Serv., 720 F.2d 1495, 1499 (11th Cir. 1983) (“The court’s power to dismiss a cause ‘is an inherent aspect of its authority to enforce its orders and insure prompt disposition of law suits.’”

(quoting Jones v. Graham, 709 F.2d 1457, 1458 (11th Cir. 1983))); Betty K Agencies, LTD v. M/V Monada, 432 F.3d 1333, 1337-38 (11th Cir. 2005) (explaining that federal courts have inherent authority to dismiss for failing to comply with court orders and lack of prosecution). Therefore, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED: 1. Judge Hunt’s report and recommendation [7] is ADOPTED. 2. This CASE IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 3. This CASE IS CLOSED. 4. All pending motions are DENIED AS MOOT, and all pending deadlines are TERMINATED. ORDERED in Chambers in West Palm Beach, Florida, this 17th day of November 2025.

ED ARTAU UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

CC: Ronel Jacques 4510 NW 36 Street Lauderdale Lakes, FL 33319 PRO SE