Thundathil

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TAMPA DIVISION

CHRISTINA D. THUNDATHIL,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No: 8:25-cv-1564-MSS-SPF

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

BAY CARE HEALTH CARE D/B/A

WINTER HAVEN HOSPITAL,

CITY OF WINTER HAVEN,

POLICE OF WINTER HAVEN,

POLK COUNTY BOARD OF

COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, AND

POLK COUNTY SHERIFF GRADY

JUDD,

Defendants.

ORDER

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court for consideration of United States

Magistrate Judge Sean P. Flynn’s Report and Recommendation dated October 21,

2025, which recommended that this action be dismissed without prejudice and

Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis be denied without prejudice. (Dkt. 7 at

12-13) Judge Flynn found that Plaintiff’s Complaint is a shotgun pleading, (Id. at 5-7),

Plaintiff failed to state a claim against Defendants based on several of causes of action,

(Id. at 7-12), and Plaintiff failed to allege information sufficient for the Court to reach

any substantive findings on whether a claim has been stated under several additional

statutes and common law causes of action mentioned in the Complaint, like the

FTCA, Title VII, the ADA, the Rehabilitation Act, negligence, and medical

malpractice. (Id. at 12 n.5) Accordingly, Judge Flynn recommended the action be

dismissed without prejudice and Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis be

denied without prejudice. (Id. at 12) Plaintiff has not filed an objection to the Report

and Recommendation, and the deadline for doing so has passed.

In the Eleventh Circuit, a district judge may accept, reject, or modify the

magistrate judge’s report and recommendation after conducting a careful and

complete review of the findings and recommendations. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1);

Williams v. Wainwright, 681 F.2d 732, 732 (11th Cir. 1982). A district judge “shall

make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed

findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).

This requires that the district judge “give fresh consideration to those issues to which

specific objection has been made by a party.” Jeffrey S. v. State Bd. of Educ., 896 F.2d

507, 512 (11th Cir.1990) (quoting H.R. 1609, 94th Cong. § 2 (1976)). In the absence

of specific objections, there is no requirement that a district judge review factual

findings de novo, Garvey v. Vaughn, 993 F.2d 776, 779 n.9 (11th Cir. 1993), and the

court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings and

recommendations. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The district judge reviews legal

conclusions de novo, even in the absence of an objection. See Cooper-Houston v.

Southern Ry., 37 F.3d 603, 604 (11th Cir. 1994).

Upon consideration of the Report and Recommendation, in conjunction with

an independent examination of the file, the Court concludes that the Report and

Recommendation should be adopted, confirmed, and approved in all respects.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that:

1. The Report and Recommendation, (Dkt. 7), is CONFIRMED and

ADOPTED as part of this Order.

2. This action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE and

Plaintiffs motion to proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED

WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

3. Within FOURTEEN (14) days of the date of this Order, Plaintiff

may file a renewed request to proceed in forma pauperis and an

amended complaint that cures the defects identified in the Report

and Recommendation. Plaintiffs failure to file an amended

complaint by the deadline set in this Order may result in dismissal

of this case with prejudice and without further notice.

DONE and ORDERED in Tampa, Florida, this 13th day of November 2025.

MARY\S_SGRIVEN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Copies furnished to:

Counsel of Record

Any Unrepresented Person