Tucker v. The School Board of Lee County, Florida

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 24-cv-00142-WPD-PHM MICHAEL TUCKER, Individually & § AZUREE’D TUCKER, Individually & on § behalf of M.T., a Minor Child,

Plaintiffs, vs.

THE SCHOOL DISTRICT OF LEE § COUNTY, FLORIDA; THE SCHOOL § BOARD OF LEE COUNTY, FLORIDA; § JURY DEMANDED STEPHAN CATO; KYLE BURCHFIELD; § ALEX CARCIOPPOLO; ROBERT § HINSON; CHRISTOPHER CHAPELL; § ROBERT BUTZ; and CHRISTOPHER S. § BERNIER, Ph.D.,

Defendants. ___________________________________/

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE; OVERRULING OBJECTIONS; DISMISSING AMENDED COMPLAINT WITHOUT PREJUDICE

THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon the June 2, 2025 Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Patrick M. Hunt (the “Report”) [DE 54]. The Court has conducted a de novo review of the Report [DE 54], Plaintiffs Michael Tucker, Azuree’d Tucker, and M.T., a Minor (collectively, “Plaintiffs”)’s Objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendations [DE 55], Defendants The School Board of Lee County, Florida, Stephan Cato, Kyle Burchfield, Alex Carcioppolo, Robert Hinson, Christopher S. Bernier, Ph.D, Robert Butz, and Christopher Chapell (collectively, “Defendants”)’s Response to Plaintiffs’ Objections [DE 56], 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; see also 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 Plaintiffs’ Objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendations.

The First Amended Complaint alleges in relevant part that Plaintiff M.T., an African American student-athlete, was subjected to race-based discrimination, during both extracurricular activities and the school period, while participating as one of only two African American players on the Fort Myers High School baseball team. See [DE 41]. The Magistrate Judge entered a Report on June 2, 2025 recommending that the Amended Complaint be dismissed without prejudice on the ground that the Amended Complaint “falls into the fourth category of shotgun pleadings, in that it fails to adequately identify which Defendants, specifically, are responsible for which acts or omissions. And this failure is critical to the claims at issue, which have relatively specific requirements and particular defenses that hinge on who,

in particular, did what, and when.” See [DE 54] at p. 6. The Plaintiffs filed an objection and alternatively a request for leave to amend. See [DE 55]. The Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s analysis and conclusions in the Report. Plaintiffs’ objections are overruled. However, as this dismissal is without prejudice, Plaintiffs may file a Second Amended Complaint to attempt to remedy the problems in the Amended Complaint.

For the foregoing reasons, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: 1. The Report [DE 54] is hereby APPROVED; 2. Plaintiffs’ Objections [DE 55] are OVERRULED; 3. The Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint [DE 47] is GRANTED; 4. The Amended Complaint [DE 41] is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE; 5. Plaintiffs are granted leave to file a Second Amended Complaint on or before July 2, 2025. In the absence thereof, the Court shall close this case. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Fort Lauderdale, Broward County, Florida, this 23rd day of June, 2025.

f a f~ j 7 (} Hs A ha io 4 of □ ff ayer A CA WO A. AN - VILLIAM P. DIMITROULEAS United States District Judge Copies furnished to: Magistrate Judge Hunt Counsel of record