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

CASE NO. 23-81283-CIV-CANNON/Reinhart

YORDAN TANEFF,

Plaintiff, v.

MARK HOFFMAN and PALM BEACH COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE,

Defendants. ________________________________/

ORDER ACCEPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [ECF No. 34]

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation on Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (the “Report”) [ECF No. 34]. On April 23, 2024, Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint (the “Motion”) [ECF No. 28]. On July 9, 2024, following referral, Judge Bruce E. Reinhart issued a Report recommending that the Motion be granted in part and denied in part [ECF No. 34 pp. 1, 19]. Plaintiff filed objections, to which Defendants responded [ECF Nos. 38, 39]. To challenge the findings and recommendations of a magistrate judge, a party must file specific written objections identifying the portions of the proposed findings and recommendation to which objection is made. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); Heath v. Jones,

(11th Cir. 1989); Macort v. Prem, Inc.,

(11th Cir. 2006). A district court reviews de novo those portions of the report to which objection is made and may accept, reject, or modify in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.

(b)(1). Legal conclusions are reviewed de novo, even in the absence of an CASE NO. 23-81283-CIV-CANNON/Reinhart

objection. See LeCroy v. McNeil,

, 556 (11th Cir. 2010); Cooper-Houston v. S. Ry. Co.,

(11th Cir. 1994). Following de novo review of the Report, Plaintiff's objections, and Defendants’ response, the Court finds the Report to be well reasoned and correct. For the reasons set forth in the Report [ECF No. 34 pp. 8-18], it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: 1. The Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 34] is ACCEPTED. 2. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss [ECF No. 28] is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART, as set forth in the Report [ECF No. 34]. a. Plaintiff's Complaint [ECF No. 1] is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. b. Plaintiffs claims for punitive damages are STRICKEN. 3. Onor before September 27, 2024, Plaintiff shall file an amended complaint consistent with this Order and with the Report. This is Plaintiffs final opportunity to file an amended pleading. Plaintiff is advised that the forthcoming Amended Complaint will be the operative complaint in this case, thus displacing the current pleading. Plaintiff shall not incorporate any prior pleadings or claims in the Amended Complaint. 4. Failure to file a timely amended complaint that is fully compliant with this Order will result in dismissal of the case for failure to prosecute or failure to comply with court orders. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Fort Pierce, Florida this 3rd day of September 2024. } AILEEN M. CANNON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE ce: counsel of record