The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO. 24-cv-00142-WPD-PHM
MICHAEL TUCKER, Individually &
AZUREE’D TUCKER, Individually & on
behalf of M.T., a Minor Child,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
THE SCHOOL BOARD OF LEE
COUNTY, FLORIDA; et al.,
Defendants.
___________________________________/
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE;
OVERRULING OBJECTIONS; GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING
IN PART MOTION TO DISMISS THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT
THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Third Amended
Complaint [DE 76] and the May 29, 2026 Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge
Patrick M. Hunt (the “Report”) [DE 80]. The Court has conducted a de novo review of the Report
[DE 80], Plaintiffs’ Objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendations [DE 81],
and is otherwise fully advised in the premises.
A party seeking to challenge the findings in a report and recommendation of a United
States Magistrate Judge must file “written objections which shall specifically identify the
portions of the proposed findings and recommendation to which objection is made and the
specific basis for objection.” Macort v. Prem, Inc., 208 F. App’x 781, 783 (11th Cir. 2006)
(quoting Heath v. Jones, 863 F.2d 815, 822 (11th Cir. 1989)). “It is critical that the objection be
sufficiently specific and not a general objection to the report.” Macort, 208 F. App’x at 784
(citing Goney v. Clark, 749 F.2d 5, 7 (3d Cir. 1984)). If a party makes a timely and specific
objection to a finding in the report and recommendation, the district court must conduct a de
novo review of the portions of the report to which objection is made. Macort, 208 F. App’x at
783-84; see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The district court may accept, reject, or modify in whole
or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the Magistrate Judge. Macort, 208 F. App’x
at 784; 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Accordingly, the Court has undertaken a de novo review of the
record and Plaintiffs’ Objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendations.
Accordingly, the Court has undertaken a de novo review of the record and Defendants’
Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation. Upon the Court’s careful review,
the Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s thorough analysis and conclusions as set forth in
the Report [DE 70].
Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
1. The Report [DE 80] is hereby APPROVED;
2. Plaintiffs’ Objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendations [DE
81] are OVERRULED;
3. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Third Amended Complaint [DE 76] is GRANTED
IN PART AND DENIED IN PART, as follows:
a. All claims against the School Board, School District, Bernier, Butz, Cato,
Carcioppolo, Chappell and Butz are hereby DISMISSED WITH
PREJUDICE;
b. All claims against Burchfield and Hinson, with the exception of Count III: 42
U.S.C. § 1983 Race-Based Discrimination in Violation of the Equal
Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, are hereby DISMISSED
WITH PREJUDICE;
c. The Motion is otherwise denied.
4. The remaining Defendants shall file their answer(s) to the remaining claims against
them in the Third Amended Complaint on or before July 13, 2026.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Fort Lauderdale, Broward County, Florida,
this 29th day of June, 2025.
: “4 if % i 4 ges
gt UF f Af f af) A
VILLIAM P. DIMITROULEAS
United States District Judge
Copies furnished to:
Magistrate Judge Hunt
Counsel of record