Said v. Ministry of Interior

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION

MOHAMED FATHY SAID,

Plaintiff, v. Case No. 8:21-cv-1073-WFJ-CPT

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE; MINISTRY OF INTERIOR; MINISTRY OF ADMINISTRATIVE DEVELOPMENT, LABOUR, AND SOCIAL AFFAIRS; EMBASSY OF QATAR; MINISTRY OF JUSTICE QATAR; MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS; AISHA AHMED HO AL-ADHAB; QATAR MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY; and QATAR MINISTRY OF ECONOMY AND TRADE,

Defendants. ________________________________/

ORDER Before the Court is the motion to dismiss filed by Defendants United States Department of Justice and United States Department of State (Dkt. 60) and Plaintiff Mr. Said’s response in opposition. Dkt. 72. Also before the Court is Mr. Said’s motion to dispatch. Dkt. 81. The magistrate judge issued a thorough and well-reasoned report recommending the motion to dismiss the operative complaint (found at docket 11) be granted with leave to amend in accordance with the report. Dkt. 88. Plaintiff filed timely objections. Dkt. 90.

When a party makes timely and specific objections to the report and recommendation of the magistrate judge, the district judge shall conduct a de novo review of the portions of the record to which objection is made. 28 U.S.C. §

636(b)(1): Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); Jeffrey S. State Bd. of Educ. of State of Ga., 896 F.2d 507, 512 (11th Cir. 1990). After such independent review, the Court may accept, reject, or modify the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); Macort v. Prem., Inc., 208 F. App’x

781, 783–84 (11th Cir. 2006) (citing published opinion). The magistrate judge found that this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate Mr. Said’s claims against these movants and that the pleading fails to

state a claim and to comply with basic pleading requirements. Mr. Said objects. For the reasons explained in the Report and Recommendation, and in conjunction with an independent examination of the file, the Court rules as follows: 1. Plaintiff Mr. Said’s objections (Dkt. 90) are overruled.

2. The Report and Recommendation (Dkt. 88) is confirmed, approved, and adopted in all respects and is hereby made a part of this Order. 3. Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Dkt. 60) is granted in part and denied in

part. 4. The Amended Complaint (Dkt. 11) is dismissed without prejudice and with leave to amend. If Mr. Said desires to file a Second Amended Complaint, he shall do so by complying with the jurisdictional and pleading requirements as set forth in the Report and Recommendation and by filing a Second Amended Complaint within thirty (30) days. 5. The Court agrees that Mr. Said should seek legal assistance and consult the resources available to pro se litigants as expressed in the Report and Recommendation. 6. Mr. Said’s motion to dispatch (Dkt. 81) is denied as moot. 7. Attorneys Peter King and Chemere Ellis are relieved of any additional responsibility in this action provided they instruct Mr. Said on how to

serve both the domestic and international Defendants should he choose to file another amended complaint. DONE AND ORDERED at Tampa, Florida, on March 17, 2023. me, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE COPIES FURNISHED TO: Plaintiff, pro se Counsel of record