April Berra v. State of Florida, et al.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION APRIL BERRA, Plaintiff, v. Case No: 8:25-cv-2519-MSS-TGW STATE OF FLORIDA, et al., Defendants.

ORDER THIS CAUSE comes before the Court for consideration of Plaintiff’s Complaint. (Dkt. 1) On October 24, 2025, United States Magistrate Judge Thomas G.

Wilson issued a Report and Recommendation, (Dkt. 10), which recommended Plaintiff’s Complaint be dismissed without prejudice. Plaintiff has not objected to the Report and Recommendation, and the deadline for doing so has passed. Upon consideration of all relevant filings, case law, and being otherwise fully advised, the Court DISMISSES the Complaint.

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. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Williams v. Wainwright, 681 F.2d 732, 732 (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.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(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., 896 F.2d 507, 512 (11th Cir. 1990) (quoting H.R. 1609, 94th Cong. § 2 (1976)). Absent specific objections, there is no requirement that a district judge review factual findings de novo, Garvey v. Vaughn, 993 F.2d 776, 779 n.9 (11th Cir. 1993), and the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings and recommendations. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The district judge reviews legal conclusions de novo, even in the absence of an objection. See Cooper-Houston v. Southern Ry., 37 F.3d 603, 604 (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.

In addition, it has come to the Court’s attention that Plaintiff has initiated two separate actions with nearly identical complaints. See Berra v. State of Florida et al., No. 8:25-cv-2019-MSS-SPF (M.D. Fla.) (“Berra 1”).1 It is improper to have two separate, identical proceedings pending concurrently. Thus, to the extent Plaintiff intends to proceed with the claims raised in this case or the Berra 1 Case, she must proceed in the Berra 1 Case. The Clerk is DIRECTED to CLOSE THIS CASE.

1 The Court notes that the docket in this case reflects several more defendants than the Berra Case. While these additional defendants are referenced in the body of the complaint in both cases, Plaintiff has not identified these entities and individuals in the caption of the complaint in either case. Thus, despite this distinction reflected on the docket, both cases are against the same nineteen defendants. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(a) (“The title of the complaint must name all the parties[.]”).

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that: 1. The Report and Recommendation, (Dkt. 10), is CONFIRMED and ADOPTED as part of this Order.

2. The Complaint, (Dkt. 1), is DISMISSED. Plaintiff may file a single amended complaint within TWENTY-ONE DAYS of the date of this Order IN THE BERRA 1 CASE. Failure to timely file an amended complaint in the Berra 1 Case will result in the dismissal of that case WITH PREJUDICE.

3. The Clerk is DIRECTED to TERMINATE any pending motions and CLOSE THE CASE.

4, The Clerk is DIRECTED to mail a copy of this Order to the address Plaintiff provided in this case and a second copy of this Order to the address Plaintiff provided in the Berra 1 Case.

DONE and ORDERED in Tampa, Florida, this 6th day of January 2026.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Copies furnished to: Counsel of Record Any Unrepresented Person