Opinion

Brown v. Hillsborough County Sheriff's Office

Court
District Court, M.D. Florida
Filed
Jun 18, 2025
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 36.8%

The opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TAMPA DIVISION

LAVAL RASHAD BROWN,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No: 8:25-cv-854-WFJ-TGW

HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY

SHERIFF’S OFFICE, et al.,

Defendants.

/

ORDER

Before the Court is the United States Magistrate Judge’s report

recommending that Plaintiff Laval Brown’s pro se amended complaint (Dkt. 5) be

dismissed and stricken from the record. Dkt. 9. In response, Plaintiff filed

objections. Dkt. 12.

When a party makes timely and specific objections to the report and

recommendation of the magistrate judge, the district judge shall conduct a de novo

review of the portions of the record to which objection is made. 28 U.S.C. §

636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); Jeffrey S. State Bd. of Educ. of State of Ga.,

896 F.2d 507, 512 (11th Cir. 1990). After such independent review, the Court may

accept, reject, or modify the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. 28

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); Macort v. Prem., Inc., 208 F. App’x

781, 783–84 (11th Cir. 2006) (citing published opinion).

The Magistrate Judge, in a thorough and well-reasoned analysis, found that

the amended complaint (Dkt. 5) fails to satisfy basic pleading requirements in its

factual or legal allegations and to state a cognizable claim. Dkt. 9. It contains

false, scurrilous, and impertinent matter and mocks the State Attorney’s Office. Id.

at 3. Having conducted a de novo and independent review of the file, and for the

sound reasons explained in the Report and Recommendation, the Court rules as

follows:

1. Plaintiff’s objections (Dkt. 12) are overruled.

2. The Report and Recommendation (Dkt. 9) is adopted, confirmed, and

approved in all respects and made a part of this order.

3. Plaintiff’s amended complaint (Dkt. 5) is dismissed and stricken from the

record.

4. The Clerk is directed to terminate any pending motions and to close the

case.

DONE and ORDERED in Tampa, Florida on June 18, 2025.

s/William F. Jung

WILLIAM F. JUNG

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Copies furnished to:

Plaintiff, pro se

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.