The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case No. 2:24-cv-14061-KMM
FARRIS E. WILSON,
Plaintiff,
v.
ERIK ARELLANO and
NICHOLAS ANTON,
Defendants.
________________________________/
ORDER ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
THIS CAUSE came before the Court upon Defendant Nicholas Anton’s (“Defendant”)
Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint. (ECF No. 4). This case was referred to the Honorable
Ryon M. McCabe, United States Magistrate Judge, to take all necessary and proper action as
required by law regarding all pre-trial, non-dispositive matters including discovery, and for a
Report and Recommendation on any dispositive matters. (ECF No. 11). On August 12, 2024,
Magistrate Judge McCabe issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) (ECF No. 23)
recommending that the Motion be GRANTED and that pro se Plaintiff Farris E. Wilson’s
(“Plaintiff”) Complaint (ECF No. 1-3) be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Defendant filed
a timely Objection. (“Obj.”) (ECF No. 24). The matter is now ripe for review.1 As set forth
below, the Court ADOPTS the R&R.
I. LEGAL STANDARD
The Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or
1 The Court assumes the Parties’ familiarity with the facts and procedural history, which are set
forth in the R&R. See R&R at 1–2.
recommendations made by the magistrate judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3).
The Court “must determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition that has been
properly objected to.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). A de novo review is therefore required if a party
files “a proper, specific objection” to a factual finding contained in the report. Macort v. Prem,
Inc., 208 F. App’x 781, 784 (11th Cir. 2006). “It is critical that the objection be sufficiently
specific and not a general objection to the report” to warrant de novo review. Id. Yet when a party
has not properly objected to the magistrate judge’s findings, “the court need only satisfy itself that
there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.” See Keaton
v. United States, No. 14-21230-CIV, 2015 WL 12780912, at *1 (S.D. Fla. May 4, 2015) (citation
omitted); see also Lopez v. Berryhill, No. 17-CV-24263, 2019 WL 2254704, at *2 (S.D. Fla. Feb.
26, 2019) (stating that a district judge “evaluate[s] portions of the [R&R] not objected to under a
clearly erroneous standard of review” (quoting Davis v. Apfel, 93 F. Supp. 2d 1313, 1317 (M.D.
Fla. 2000))).
II. DISCUSSION
As set forth in the R&R, Magistrate Judge McCabe concludes that Plaintiff’s Complaint
should be dismissed without prejudice for violation of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2)
and 10(b). See generally R&R. “Complaints that violate either Rule 8(a)(2) or Rule 10(b), or
both, are often disparagingly referred to as ‘shotgun pleadings.’” Weiland v. Palm Beach Cnty.
Sheriff’s Off., 792 F.3d 1313, 1320 (11th Cir. 2015). The unifying characteristic of all types of
shotgun pleadings is that they fail to one degree or another, and in one way or another, to give the
defendants adequate notice of the claims against them and the grounds upon which each claim
rests. Id. Such a shotgun pleading makes it “virtually impossible to know which allegations of
fact are intended to support which claim(s) for relief.” Anderson v. Dist. Bd. of Trustees of Cent.
Fla. Cmty. Coll., 77 F.3d 364, 366 (11th Cir. 1996). Therefore, “shotgun pleadings are routinely
condemned by the Eleventh Circuit.” Real Est. Mortg. Network, Inc. v. Cadrecha, No. 8:11-CV-
474-T-30AEP, 2011 WL 2881928, at *2 (M.D. Fla. July 19, 2011) (citing Pelletier v. Zweifel, 921
F.2d 1465, 1518 (11th Cir. 1991)).
Here, Magistrate Judge McCabe finds that Plaintiff’s Complaint is an impermissible
shotgun pleading for at least three reasons. See R&R at 4. First, the Complaint repeatedly refers
to the actions of “the officer” or “the officers” without specifying which officer committed which
acts. Id. Therefore, the Complaint does not include sufficient factual detail to give each Defendant
fair notice of the exact wrongdoing of which he is accused. Id. Second, the Complaint does not
separate each legal cause of action into a separate count, with one clear legal theory per count. Id.
at 5. As Magistrate Judge McCabe explains, “[a]lthough the Complaint purports to bring three
counts, close inspection reveals that each count contains a hodgepodge of potential claims, causes
of action, boilerplate legal terms, and citations to miscellaneous state and federal laws.” Id.
Relatedly, because Plaintiff’s Complaint describes the actions of on-duty police officers Plaintiff
must allege facts to overcome qualified immunity, which Plaintiff has failed to do. Id. at 6.
Finally, the Complaint fails to allege clear, supporting facts logically tied to each legal claim. Id.
Instead, the Complaint “makes boilerplate conclusions, leaving many unanswered questions.” Id.
Upon review, the Court agrees with Magistrate Judge McCabe’s analysis and finds that Plaintiff’s
Complaint is a quintessential example of a shotgun pleading.
Defendant filed an Objection. See Obj. Therein, Defendant merely states that he objects
to the R&R “to the extent that the Report and Recommendation addresses only one ground raised
in Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss . . . and dismisses Plaintiff’s Complaint without prejudice.”
Obj. at 1. Defendant asserts that “[t]he other grounds raised in Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss
may result in a dispositive ruling regarding Plaintiff's claims.” Jd. Defendant’s objection is
without merit. The Court agrees with Magistrate Judge McCabe that since Plaintiff has not had
any previous opportunities to amend, he should be given an opportunity to re-plead his claims by
way of an Amended Complaint. R&R at 7. Defendant’s objection is therefore overruled.
I. CONCLUSION
Accordingly, UPON CONSIDERATION of the Motion, the R&R, the Objection, the
pertinent portions of the record, and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, it is hereby
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the R&R (ECF No. 23) is ADOPTED. Defendant’s Motion
to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint (ECF No. 4) is GRANTED. Plaintiff's Complaint (ECF No. 1-
3) is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE with leave to file an Amended Complaint. In the
event Plaintiff decides to file an Amended Complaint, the Amended Complaint should comply
with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and should avoid the problems common to shotgun
pleadings. The Clerk of Court is INSTRUCTED to CLOSE this case. All pending motions, if
any, are DENIED AS MOOT.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this 29th day of August, 2024.
MICHAEL MOORE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
c: All counsel of record