UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA ORLANDO DIVISION

CINDY ELAINE WASHINGTON,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 6:25-cv-563-CEM-DCI

CDL TRAINER LUIS R-B, CWC,CWCL LYDIA CORTEZ, ALICIA REECE, M C OPERATION DAN H., LASONJE HOLLINGER, MEARS TRANSPORTATION TALENT ACQUISTION,

Defendants, /

ORDER THIS CAUSE is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis (“Motion,” Doc. 13). The United States Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R,” Doc. 14), recommending that the Motion be denied and this case be dismissed. Plaintiff filed an Appeal of the R&R (Doc. 15), which will be interpreted as an Objection. Pursuant to

(b)(1), when a party makes a timely objection, the Court shall review de novo any portions of a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation concerning specific proposed findings or recommendations to which an objection is made. See also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). De novo review “require[s] independent consideration of factual issues based on the record.” Jeffrey S. v. State Bd. of Educ. of Ga.,

, 513 (11th Cir. 1990) (per curiam). The

district court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.”

(b)(1). Plaintiff’s Objection does not comport with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

72. Rather than objecting to specific portions of the R&R, Plaintiff’s Objection makes unsubstantiated allegations of abuses of power, defamation, and intimidation. (See generally Doc. 15). The Court declines to address arguments that have already been addressed in the R&R without Plaintiff explaining which portions of the R&R

she disagrees with and why. Despite the R&R’s finding that Plaintiff is a pauper, Plaintiff’s Objection states that the “plaintiff[’s] finances ha[ve] NOT changed.” (Id. at 1). Nowhere does

Plaintiff’s Objection discuss the R&R’s finding that the Amendment Complaint should be dismissed because it does not comply with the pleading requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (See generally id.). Plaintiff’s Objection does not raise a single coherent legal argument in

opposition to the R&R. After review in accordance with

(b)(1) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72, and considering Plaintiff’s Objections, the Magistrate Judge’s recommended disposition is accepted.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED as follows: 1. Plaintiff's Objection (Doc. 15) is OVERRULED. 2. The Report and Recommendation (Doc. 14) is ADOPTED and made a part of this Order. 3. The Motion to Proceed /n Forma Pauperis (Doc. 13) is DENIED. 4. Plaintiff's Amended Complaint (Doc. 12) is DISMISSED without prejudice. 5. On or before October 21, 2025, Plaintiff may file a Second Amended Complaint and Renewed Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis that corrects the deficiencies set forth in the Report and Recommendation. Failure to do so will result in the dismissal of this case with prejudice without further notice. DONE and ORDERED in Orlando, Florida on September 30, 2025.

| CARLOS E. MENDOZA | UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUD@E

Copies furnished to: Unrepresented Party