UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO.: 20-CV-61274-SINGHAL/Reid

MARK MARAGH,

Plaintiff,

v.

BROWARD SHERIFF’S OFFICE,

Defendant.

_______________________________________/

ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

THIS CAUSE is before the Court on United States Magistrate Judge Lisette Reid’s 

Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) (DE [13]), issued on October 14, 2020. Therein, 

Magistrate Judge Reid considered Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint (DE [10]), filed on the 

same date as Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis (DE [11]), and in 

accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915 of the Prison Litigation Reform Act recommends this 

case be DISMISSED.

Parties have fourteen days to file any objections to a magistrate judge’s factual 

findings. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2); S.D. Fla. Mag. R. 4(b). Here, neither side filed any 

such objections. With no objections filed, the Court’s review of the R&R (DE [13]) is 

properly limited to a de novo review of only its legal conclusions. See Certain 

Underwriters at Lloyd’s of London v. PharmaTech, LLC, 2019 WL 4673739, at *1 (M.D. 

Fla. Aug. 19, 2019) (“Legal conclusions are reviewed de novo, even in the absence of an 

objection.”).

Case 0:20-cv-61274-AHS Document 14 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/29/2020 Page 1 of 3
2

The Court has reviewed the R&R (DE [13]), the entire file, and the record. The 

Court would note that (DE [10]) is Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint. Magistrate Judge Reid, 

in (DE [6]) not only ordered Plaintiff to amend his original complaint, but also gave as 

much guidance as possible to alert Plaintiff to the deficiencies of his pleading. There, the 

Magistrate Judge stated:

The complaint appears to raise a claim of “negligence” under 

state law [ECF No. 1 at 5-7], but it does not identify defendants 

to support a finding for diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 

1332. To the extent Plaintiff means to raise a federal claim 

that arises under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and, therefore, the 

Constitution, there are no allegations supporting one. See, 

e.g., Chandler v. Crosby, 379 F.3d 1278, 1289–90 (11th Cir. 

2004) (explaining negligence will not support a conditions of 

confinement claim).

This is not an exhaustive list of the deficiencies observed in 

the complaint. Because this Court is not unsympathetic, 

Plaintiff may have one opportunity to rectify his complaint. 

Plaintiff is instructed to follow the directives and applicable 

rules articulated in this order if [he] still wishes to pursue this 

action.

(Order to Am. (DE [6]), at 5–6).

Unfortunately, as Magistrate Judge Reid then found in her R&R (DE [13]), “[t]he 

Amended Complaint fairs no better. [ECF No. 10]. Without a federal right implicated by 

Plaintiff’s allegations, Plaintiff failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted to 

support this § 1983 action.” (R&R (DE [13]), at 4) (citations omitted). While Plaintiff may 

raise a constitutional claim in a future case, he must be acutely aware of any procedural 

bars or time limitations that might apply. Accordingly, it is hereby

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the United States Magistrate Judge Reid’s 

Report and Recommendation (DE [13]) is AFFIRMED and ADOPTED. The Amended 

Case 0:20-cv-61274-AHS Document 14 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/29/2020 Page 2 of 3
3

Complaint (DE [10]) is DISMISSED. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE this case 

and DENY all pending motions as moot.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, this 29th day of

October 2020.

Copies furnished to counsel of record via CM/ECF

Case 0:20-cv-61274-AHS Document 14 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/29/2020 Page 3 of 3