The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
ORLANDO DIVISION
DOREEN MORONEY,
Plaintiff,
v. Case No: 6:26-cv-1172-JSS-DCI
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF
HEALTH, FLORIDA BOARD OF
NURSING, CAITLIN HARDEN,
MATTHEW WITTERS, DEBORAH
LOUCKS, JOE R. BAKER, JOSE D.
CASTILLOIII, PHD, MSN, CRNA,
ARNP, CHAIR, ELIZABETH
EUBANKS, L. CARROWAY,
FLADIMIR CELUNICE, SCOTT
FITZPATRICK, MARTHA
MCBRIDE, TRACY R. HOWARD, N.
JOHNSON, JOHN/JANE DOE,
TITUSVILLE POLICE
DEPARTMENT, OFICER RAMOS,
RICHMOND COUNTY SHERIFF'S
OFFICE, OFFICER SING,
INDIANAPOLIS POLICE
DEPARTMENT, HEALTH
CAROUSEL, LLC, LUKE
BOHARDT, EARL DALTON, IU
HEALTH METHODIST HOSPITAL,
AYA HEALTHCARE, INC.,
FUMPTRUCK, TIZZYENT,
SHEKHIYNAHL, JOSLYNN WEBB,
and JOHN/JANE DOES 13-50,
Defendants.
/
ORDER
On May 27, 2026, Plaintiff initiated this case by filing a complaint against
twenty-eight named Defendants and John and Jane Does asserting fourteen claims.
(Dkt. 1.) Plaintiff moves to proceed in forma pauperis. (Dkt. 2.) On August 11, 2026,
the magistrate judge issued a recommendation that the court deny the motion and
dismiss the complaint with leave to amend. (Dkt. 15.) Plaintiff filed an objection to
the magistrate’s recommendation, but her objection states that she agrees her
complaint was an improper shotgun pleading. (Dkt. 16 at 1–2.) She seeks leave amend
her complaint. (Id. at 2.) Upon consideration, the court adopts the recommendation.
After conducting a careful and complete review of the findings and
recommendations made by a magistrate judge, a district judge “may accept, reject, or
modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1);
accord Fed. R. Civ. P. 72. A party must serve and file written objections to a magistrate
judge’s recommendation within fourteen days of being served with a copy of it, 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), and the failure to object in a timely fashion “waives the right to
challenge on appeal the district court’s order based on unobjected-to factual and legal
conclusions,” 11th Cir. R. 3-1. With respect to dispositive matters, the district judge
must conduct a de novo review of any portion of the recommendation to which a
timely objection is made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); United States
v. Farias-Gonzalez, 556 F.3d 1181, 1184 n.1 (11th Cir. 2009) (“A district court makes a
de novo determination of those portions of a magistrate’s report to which objections
are filed.”). Even in the absence of a specific objection, the district judge reviews any
legal conclusions de novo. Cooper-Houston v. S. Ry. Co., 37 F.3d 603, 604 (11th Cir.
1994): Ashworth v. Glades Cnty. Bd. of Cnty. Comm’rs, 379 F. Supp. 3d 1244, 1246 (M.D.
Fla. 2019).
Here, upon conducting a careful and complete review of the magistrate judge’s
recommendation and giving de novo review to matters of law, the court agrees with
the recommendation in full.
Accordingly:
1. The magistrate judge’s recommendation (Dkt. 15) is ADOPTED.
2. The motion (Dkt. 2) is DENIED.
3. The complaint (Dkt. 1) is DISMISSED without prejudice.
4. Plaintiff may file an amended complaint and a renewed motion to proceed in
forma pauperis on or before October 12, 2026. The court cautions Plaintiff:
“TA]n order dismissing a complaint with leave to amend within a specified time
becomes a final judgment if the deadline to amend expires without the plaintiff
amending its complaint or seeking an extension of time.” Auto. Alignment &
Body Serv., Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 953 F.3d 707, 719-20 (11th Cir.
2020).
ORDERED in Orlando, Florida, on September 14, 2026.
lt whieh
JUFIE S. SNEED
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Copies furnished to:
_3-
Counsel of Record
Unrepresented Party