Simon v. Pierre

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 24-24469-CV-WILLIAMS DOMINIQUE SIMON, Plaintiff, v. ROGER PIERRE, Defendant. ___________________________/ ORDER THIS MATTER is before the Court on Magistrate Judge Jonathan Goodman’s Report and Recommendation (DE 8) (“Report”) on Plaintiff Dominique Simon’s Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis (DE 3) (“Motion”). In the Report, Judge Goodman recommends that the Court “dismiss without prejudice Plaintiff’s Complaint (except that the money laundering count should be dismissed with prejudice), deny as moot without prejudice to renew (if necessary) the instant motion to proceed in forma pauperis, and consolidate this case with Simon v. Desir, Case No. 24-cv-24467-BB (S.D. Fla. Nov. 12, 2024) pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a).” (DE 8 at 1–2) (cleaned up).

Plaintiff timely filed Objections to the Report. (DE 9.) Objections to a report and recommendation must “pinpoint the specific findings that the party disagrees with.”

United States v. Schultz, 565 F.3d 1353, 1360 (11th Cir. 2009). If the objections meet this specificity requirement, the Court makes “a de novo determination of 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.” Macort v. Prem, Inc., 208 F. App’x 781, 783–84 (11th Cir. 2006) (quoting Heath v. Jones, 863 F.2d 815, 822 (11th Cir. 1989)). “If a party fails to object to any portion of the magistrate judge’s report, those portions are reviewed for clear error.” Havana Docks Corp. v. Carnival Corp., 592 F. Supp. 3d 1088, 1150 (S.D. Fla. 2022) (citing Macort, 208 F. App’x at 784).

Under the Southern District of Florida Local Rules, objections must also cite to the relevant supporting legal authority. S.D. Fla. Mag. J. R. 4(b). Here, Plaintiff’s Objections only vaguely state that the Report “incorrectly applied the legal standard for the Relevant Claim.” (DE 9 at 1.) The remaining Objections are a recitation of facts contained in the Complaint.

A review of the Report demonstrates that Plaintiff’s Complaint was appropriately reviewed under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8 and 10. The Report also properly evaluated Plaintiff’s money laundering claim, which is brought pursuant to criminal statute 18 U.S.C. §§ 1956(a)(1)(B)(i), (a)(2). The Court agrees with the Report’s thoughtful and well-reasoned analysis as to Plaintiff’s claims. However, in the days since the Report was issued, Plaintiff’s other action, Simon v. Desir, Case No. 24-cv-24467- BB (S.D. Fla. Nov. 12, 2024) has been dismissed. Accordingly, consolidation of the actions is no longer proper and the Court declines to adopt that portion of the Report.

Upon a careful review of the Report, the Motion, the record, and applicable law, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that: 1. Judge Goodman’s Report (DE 8) is AFFIRMED AND ADOPTED IN PART.

2. Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis (DE 3) is DENIED AS MOOT. If Plaintiff files an amended complaint as set forth below, he may re-file the motion.

3. Plaintiffs Motion for Referral to Volunteer Attorney Program (DE 5) is DENIED AS MOOT. If Plaintiff files an amended complaint as set forth below, he may re-file the motion.

4. Plaintiff Complaint (DE 1) is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE as to Counts Il, Ill, IV, and V. Count | is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

5. lf Plaintiff believes he can cure the deficiencies described in the Report, he must do so by filing an amended complaint as to the remaining counts on or before January 3, 2025. Failure to do so will result in dismissal of this action.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers in Miami, Florida, this 10th day of December, 2024.

See ae, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Page 3 of 3