# Brown v. Hillsborough County Sheriff's Office

> District Court, M.D. Florida · June 18, 2025

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11080152

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, M.D. Florida
- **Decided:** June 18, 2025
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11080152

## Opinion text

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

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11080152. Public record. Not legal advice.