UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA ORLANDO DIVISION

CIVICA SIMPSON,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No: 6:25-cv-257-JSS-DCI

CAPITAL ONE N.A. and DOES 1–10,

Defendants. ___________________________________/ ORDER Plaintiff, pro se, has filed a complaint (Dkt. 1) and a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Dkt. 3). The magistrate judge assigned to this case recommends dismissing the complaint without prejudice as a shotgun pleading and accordingly denying the motion without prejudice. (Dkt. 10.) No party has filed objections to the recommendation, and the time to do so has passed. Upon consideration, the court adopts the recommendation, dismisses the complaint without prejudice, denies the motion without prejudice, and permits Plaintiff to file an amended complaint and an amended motion to proceed in forma pauperis. After conducting a careful and complete review of the findings and recommendations made by a magistrate judge, a district judge “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations.”

(b)(1); accord Fed. R. Civ. P. 72. A party must serve and file written objections to a magistrate judge’s recommendation within fourteen days of being served with a copy of it,

(b)(1)(C), and the failure to object in a timely fashion “waives the right to challenge on appeal the district court’s order based on unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions,” 11th Cir. R. 3-1. With respect to dispositive matters, the district judge

must conduct a de novo review of any portion of the recommendation to which a timely objection is made.

(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); United States v. Farias-Gonzalez,

, 1184 n.1 (11th Cir. 2009) (“A district court makes a de novo determination of those portions of a magistrate’s report to which objections are filed.”). Even in the absence of a specific objection, the district judge reviews any

legal conclusions de novo. Cooper-Houston v. S. Ry. Co.,

(11th Cir. 1994); Ashworth v. Glades Cnty. Bd. of Cnty. Comm’rs,

(M.D. Fla. 2019). Here, upon conducting a careful and complete review of the magistrate judge’s

recommendation and giving de novo review to matters of law, the court agrees with the recommendation in full. Accordingly: 1. The magistrate judge’s recommendation (Dkt. 10) is ADOPTED. 2. Plaintiff’s complaint (Dkt. 1) is DISMISSED without prejudice.

3. Plaintiff’s motion (Dkt. 3) is DENIED without prejudice. 4. If Plaintiff can do so in good faith, Plaintiff may file an amended complaint that corrects all the pleading deficiencies identified in the magistrate judge’s recommendation. If Plaintiff does so, Plaintiff may also file an amended motion to proceed in forma pauperis. The deadline for filing the amended complaint and the amended motion 1s June 30, 2025. ORDERED in Orlando, Florida, on June 9, 2025.

jf JUKIE S. SNEED UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Copies furnished to: Unrepresented Parties

-3-