UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION

ROBERT KELVIN LINDBLOOM,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No: 8:23-cv-02856-MSS-CPT

MANATEE MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, LLC,

Defendant.

ORDER THIS CAUSE comes before the Court for consideration of Plaintiff’s Amended Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis, (Dkt. 13), Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, (Dkts. 29, 36, 42), and Plaintiff’s responses to Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss. (Dkts. 45, 46, 48) On April 7, 2025, United States Magistrate Judge Christopher P. Tuite issued a Report and Recommendation, which recommended that Plaintiff’s Amended Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis, (Dkt. 13), be DENIED, and that Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, (Dkt. 9) be DISMISSED without Prejudice. (Dkt. 49) In the Report and Recommendation Judge Tuite also advised that Plaintiff file a Second Amended Complaint and that failure to do such could result in dismissal without further notice. Id. Plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint and has not objected to Judge Tuite’s Report and Recommendation. Moreover, the deadline for doing so has passed. Upon consideration of all relevant filings, case law, and being otherwise fully advised, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Amended Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis and

DISMISSES the Amended Complaint without prejudice. In the Eleventh Circuit, a district judge may accept, reject, or modify the magistrate judge's report and recommendation after conducting a careful and complete review of the findings and recommendations.

(b)(1); Williams v. Wainwright,

(11th Cir. 1982). A district judge “shall make a de novo

determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.”

(b)(1)(C). This requires that the district judge “give fresh consideration to those issues to which specific objection has been made by a party.” Jeffrey S. v. State Bd. of Educ.,

, 512 (11th Cir. 1990) (quoting H.R. 1609, 94th Cong. § 2 (1976)). In the absence of

specific objections, there is no requirement that a district judge review factual findings de novo, Garvey v. Vaughn,

, 779 n.9 (11th Cir. 1993), and the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings and recommendations.

(b)(1)(C). The district judge reviews legal conclusions de novo, even in the absence of an objection. See Cooper-Houston v. Southern Ry.,

(11th

Cir. 1994). Upon consideration of the Report and Recommendation, in conjunction with an independent examination of the file, the Court is of the opinion the Report and Recommendation should be adopted, confirmed, and approved in all respects. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that: 1. The Report and Recommendation, (Dkt. 49), is CONFIRMED and

ADOPTED as part of this Order. 2. Plaintiff’s Amended Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, (Dkt. 13), is DENIED without prejudice. 3. The Amended Complaint, (Dkt. 9), is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Thus, Plaintiff may, if he has a good faith basis for

amending this claim, file a second amended complaint addressing the deficiencies noted in the Report and Recommendation. (Dkt. 49) 4. This will be Plaintiff’s FINAL opportunity to amend his complaint and adequately plead one or more cognizable causes of action over which this Court can exercise jurisdiction.

5. Plaintiff must file a second amended complaint within TWENTY-ONE DAYS of the date of this Order. Failure to meet this deadline, without seeking an extension of time from the court, will result in the entry of a judgment against this Plaintiff.

6. The pending Motions to Dismiss, (Dkts. 29, 36, 42), are DENIED as moot and without Prejudice. DONE and ORDERED in Tampa, Florida, this 21st day of May 2025. j f Copies furnished to: hte tZ bn ~ Counsel of Record MARY\S_SGRIVEN Any Unrepresented Person UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE