Christopher K. Sweeney v. Acro Construction, LLC, et al.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA PANAMA CITY DIVISION CHRISTOPHER K. SWEENEY, Plaintiff, v. Case No. 5:25-cv-117-TKW-MJF ACRO CONSTRUCTION, LLC, et al., Defendants. / ORDER This case is before the Court based on the magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 152), Plaintiff’s objections (Doc. 167),1 and Defendants’ response (Doc. 171). Upon due consideration of these filings, the Court agrees with the magistrate judge’s determination that the operative second amended complaint (Doc. 34) and the first proposed third amended complaint (Doc. 87-1) are impermissible “shotgun pleadings.” And, for the reasons stated by Defendants in Along with 46 pages of objections, Plaintiff filed a 13-page “Notice of Newly Discovered Evidence” (Doc. 168), and over 5,000 pages of documents (Docs. 167-1 through 167-25) that do not appear to have anything to do with the narrow issue framed by the Report and Recommendation—i.e., whether the operative second amended complaint and proposed third amended complaint are “shotgun pleadings.” These filings violate the spirit (if not the letter) of the prior orders restricting Plaintiff’s filings until the Court had a chance to consider the Report and Recommendation, see Docs. 155, 157, 162, 166, and they continue Plaintiff’s practice of cluttering the docket with impertinent filings and obscuring any potential merit that his claims may have behind mounds of paper and conspiracy theories that appear to be grounded on nothing more than speculation that Defendants were somehow connected to four allegedly armed individuals who were seen lurking around Plaintiff’s house. their response to the objections, the Court finds that the second proposed third amended complaint (Doc. 96) is also a “shotgun pleading.”

Plaintiff has filed five complaints in this case—original, amended, second amended, and two proposed third amended—each of which was a “shotgun pleading.” The Court has no reason to believe that the sixth time would be the charm. Thus, at this point, dismissal with prejudice is warranted. See Barmapov v. Amuial, 986 F.3d 1321, 1326 (11th Cir. 2021).

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that: 1. The magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation is adopted and incorporated by reference in this Order.

2. Defendants’ motions to dismiss (Docs. 42, 62, 85) are GRANTED, and Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file amended complaint (Doc. 87) is DENIED.

3. This case is DISMISSED with prejudice on “shotgun pleading” grounds because Plaintiff has not filed a complaint that complies with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure despite having been given multiple opportunities to do so.

4. The Clerk shall terminate all pending motions, enter judgment in accordance with this Order, and close the case file.

DONE AND ORDERED this Ist day of May, 2026.

J. jo ae T. KENT WETHERELL, I UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Page 3 of 3