Wexler v. Torres

CourtDistrict Court, M.D. Florida
DecidedNovember 9, 2022
Docket6:22-cv-01627
StatusUnknown

This text of Wexler v. Torres (Wexler v. Torres) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, M.D. Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Wexler v. Torres, (M.D. Fla. 2022).

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA ORLANDO DIVISION

DAVID WAYNE GIZMO WEXLER,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 6:22-cv-1627-RBD-LHP

GEORGIE TORRES; FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF LAW ENFORCEMENT; PATRICK LEPORE; BLAISE TRETTIS; MICHELLE CAMPBELL; and STATE OF FLORIDA,

Defendants. ____________________________________

ORDER Plaintiff filed a pro se Complaint alleging constitutional violations and moved to proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc. 1; Doc. 2 (“Motion”).) On referral, U.S. Magistrate Judge Leslie Hoffman Price recommends dismissing the Complaint without prejudice and allowing Plaintiff to amend, provided he can correct several deficiencies with his original pleading.1 (Doc. 18 (“R&R”).) Neither party objected to the R&R, so the Court examines it for clear error only. See Macort v. Prem, Inc., 208 F. App’x 781, 784 (11th Cir. 2006). Finding none, the R&R is due to be adopted

1 For example, Judge Hoffman Price details in the R&R why several defendants are immune from suit and how Plaintiff’s Complaint is a shotgun pleading. (Doc. 18, pp. 6–9, 12.) in its entirety. Further, this is Plaintiff’s second attempt to file a suit against these

Defendants. See David Wayne Gizmo Wexler v. Georgie Torres, et al., No. 6:21-cv-887, Doc. Nos. 1, 47 (M.D. Fla.). Plaintiff is warned that an amended complaint failing to comply with the directives outlined in the R&R may be dismissed with

prejudice. Garcia v. Chiquita Brands Int'l, Inc., 48 F.4th 1202, 1220 (11th Cir. 2022) (Leave to amend is not necessary where there is “repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed . . . or where amendment would be futile.”).

Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED: 1. The R&R (Doc. 18) is ADOPTED, CONFIRMED, and made a part of this Order in its entirety.

2. Plaintiff’s Motion (Doc. 2) is DENIED. 3. Plaintiff’s Complaint (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

4. By Monday, November 21, 2022, Plaintiff may file an Amended Complaint correcting the deficiencies identified in the R&R (Doc. 18) and a renewed in forma pauperis motion. Failure to timely file will result in the file being closed without further notice. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers in Orlando, Florida, on November 9, 2022.

OY bs a ROY B. DALTON JR’ United States District Judge

Copies: Pro se Plaintiff David Wayne Gizmo Wexler

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Colleen Macort v. Prem, Inc.
208 F. App'x 781 (Eleventh Circuit, 2006)
Jane Doe 8 v. Chiquita Brands International, Inc.
48 F.4th 1202 (Eleventh Circuit, 2022)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Wexler v. Torres, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wexler-v-torres-flmd-2022.