Marco T. Cadejuste v. S. Miliken

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TALLAHASSEE DIVISION MARCO T. CADEJUSTE, Plaintiff, v. Case No.: 4:26cv27-MW/MAF S. MILIKEN, Defendant. _________________________/ ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION This Court has considered, without hearing, the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, ECF No. 36, and has also reviewed de novo Plaintiff’s objections, ECF No. 43. Plaintiff’s claims are based entirely on Defendant Miliken’s alleged denials of grievances, which fails to give rise to a plausible claim of deliberate indifference. See, e.g., Castillo v. United States, Case No.: 5:17-cv-107-Oc-34PRL, 2019 WL 1281160, at *18 n.20 (M.D. Fla. Mar. 20, 2019) (listing cases). Given that dismissal of this claim is another “strike” for Plaintiff, Plaintiff may not proceed in forma puaperis in future actions unless his allegations demonstrate that he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED: The report and recommendation, ECF No. 36, is accepted and adopted, over the Plaintiff’s objections, as this Court’s opinion. Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a second amended complaint, ECF No. 41, is DENIED and his second amended complaint, ECF No. 42, is STRICKEN as unathorized. The Clerk shall enter judgment stating, “Plaintiff’s amended complaint, ECF No. 28, is DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).” The Clerk shall note on the docket that this case was dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and close the file.

SO ORDERED on June 23, 2026.

s/Mark E. Walker ____ United States District Judge