Tomeka Lanay Jones v. Memorial Healthcare System/Broward Hospital District

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO.: 26-CV-61339-WPD TOMEKA LANAY JONES,

Plaintiff,

v.

MEMORIAL HEALTHCARE SYSTEM/BROWARD HOSPITAL DISTRICT,

Defendant. ___________________________________/ ORDER ADOPTING REPORT OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE; OVERRULING OBJECTIONS; DISMISSING ACTION

THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon the June 2, 2026 Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Strauss (the “Report”) [DE 12]. The Court has conducted a de novo review of the Report [DE 12], Plaintiff Tomeka Lanay Jones (“Plaintiff”)’s Objections to Report and Recommendation [DE 14] and is otherwise fully advised in the premises. A party seeking to challenge the findings in a report and recommendation of a United States Magistrate Judge must file “written objections which shall specifically identify the portions of the proposed findings and recommendation to which objection is made and the specific basis for objection.” Macort v. Prem, Inc., 208 F. App’x 781, 783 (11th Cir. 2006) (quoting Heath v. Jones, 863 F.2d 815, 822 (11th Cir. 1989)). “It is critical that the objection be sufficiently specific and not a general objection to the report.” Macort, 208 F. App’x at 784 (citing Goney v. Clark, 749 F.2d 5, 7 (3d Cir. 1984)). If a party makes a timely and specific objection to a finding in the report and recommendation, the district court must conduct a de novo review of the portions of the report to which objection is made. Macort, 208 F. App’x at 783-84; 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The district court may accept, reject, or modify in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the Magistrate Judge. Macort, 208 F. App’x at 784; 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Accordingly, the Court has undertaken a de novo review of the record and Plaintiff's Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation. The Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s conclusions in the Report that this action should be dismissed based on the reasons thoroughly explained stated therein. Plaintiff's objections are overruled. The Magistrate Judge correctly stated that, “[t]he Court does not need to give Plaintiff further leave to amend because she has already been given one chance to amend. . . Despite this opportunity, Plaintiff has failed to rectify the deficiencies in her allegations.” [DE 12] p. 6. The Court need not grant Plaintiff perpetual opportunities to attempt to state a claim, particularly when the Court provides Plaintiff with guidance on amendment, which Plaintiff disregarded.

For the foregoing reasons, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: 1. The Report [DE 12] is hereby APPROVED; 2. The above-style action is hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE; 3. The Clerk shall CLOSE this case and DENY AS MOOT any pending motions. 4. The Clerk shall email and mail a copy of this Order to the Plaintiff at the addresses below. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Fort Lauderdale, Broward County, Florida, this 15th day of June, 2026. /

LLIAM P. DIMITROULEAS United States District Judge

Copies furnished to: Counsel of record and pro se parties Magistrate Judge Strauss

Tomeka Lanay Jones 6410 NW 6 Avenue Apt 1 Miami, FL 33150 786-386-6520 Email: tomekajones81@gmail.com PRO SE