Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TAMPA DIVISION

ALEXANDER-MARQUIS

JOHNSON,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No: 8:25-cv-02466-WFJ-NHA

TAMPA POLICE DEPARTMENT;

OFFICER KYLE R. BROWN,

Defendants.

/

ORDER

Before the Court is the United States Magistrate Judge Natalie Hirt Adam’s

Report and Recommendation that Plaintiff Alexander-Marquis Johnson’s motion to

proceed in forma pauperis (Dkt. 2) be denied and Plaintiff’s pro se Complaint (Dkt.

1) be dismissed. Dkt. 3. The time for filing objections has passed.

Absent objection, the Court conducts a “careful and complete” review of the

report and recommendation. Williams v. Wainwright, 681 F.2d 732, 732 (11th Cir.

1982 (per curiam) (citation modified). “Clear error” review applies to portions of

the report and recommendation to which no objection is made. Macort v. Prem, Inc.,

208 F. App’x 781, 784 (11th Cir. 2006) (per curiam) (citation modified). Legal

conclusions are reviewed de novo in the absence of an objection. See LeCroy v.

McNeil, 397 F. App’x 554, 556 (11th Cir. 2010) (citation omitted); Cooper-Houston

v. S. Ry. Co., 37 F.3d 603, 604 (11th Cir. 1994). The Court may accept, reject, or

modify, in whole or in part, the Magistrate Judge’s report and recommendation. 28

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Williams, 681 F.2d at 732.

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

the motion to proceed without pre-paying the filing fee (Dkt. 2) be denied without

prejudice and that his Complaint (Dkt. 1) be dismissed without prejudice, because it

fails to comply with the federal rules or to state a claim for relief. Dkt. 3 at 1. The

Court agrees.

Concerning Plaintiff’s 18 U.S.C. § 1983 claims against the Tampa Police

Department and Officer Kyle R. Brown, the Magistrate Judge correctly found that

“the Complaint does not make clear which facts are meant to support which claim(s)

against which Defendant(s). Nor does it otherwise make clear how the facts

demonstrate that one or both Defendants violated the various laws Plaintiff cites.”

Dkt. 3 at 6; see Dkt. 1 at 4. In other words, the Complaint does not comply with the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, as it failed to contain “a short and plain statement

of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2).

Because the Complaint does not comply with the Federal Rules, it presently has no

chance of success. Thus, the Court cannot allow Plaintiff to proceed without paying

the filing fee and dismisses the Complaint without prejudice.

Additionally, the Eleventh Circuit is clear that this Court must give a pro se

plaintiff, like Plaintiff Alexander-Marquis Johnson, “at least one chance to amend

the complaint before the district court dismisses the action with prejudice.” Woldeab

v. Dekalb Cnty. Bd. of Educ., 885 F.3d 1289, 1291 (11th Cir. 2018). Plaintiff may

make one last attempt at stating a claim under Section 1983. However, the Court

warns that any subsequent complaint that fails to state a claim will be dismissed with

prejudice. See Silberman v. Miami Dade Transit, 927 F.3d 1123, 1132 (11th Cir.

2019); Woldeab, 885 F.3d at 1291.

CONCLUSION

Having performed a de novo and independent review of the file, and for the

sound reasons explained in the Report and Recommendation, it is hereby

ORDERED and ADJUDGED that:

1. The Report and Recommendation, Dkt. 3, is ADOPTED, CONFIRMED,

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

2. Plaintiff’s Complaint, Dkt. 1, is DISMISSED without prejudice;

3. Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis, Dkt. 2, is DENIED without

prejudice; and

4. Plaintiff has 21 days from the date of this Order to file an amended complaint

addressing the problems with his complaint, and either (1) pay the filing fee,

or (2) file an amended motion to proceed in forma pauperis. If Plaintiff fails

to timely file an amended complaint and either (1) the filing fee, or (2) file an

amended motion to proceed in forma pauperis, the Court will dismiss the

case with prejudice.

DONE and ORDERED in Tampa, Florida, on December 2, 2025.

s/William F. Jung

WILLIAM F. JUNG

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Copies furnished to:

Plaintiff, pro se