UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

WEST PALM BEACH DIVISION

CASE NO. 20-81123-CIV-CANNON/Reinhart

DR. EUGENE MISQUITH, 

Plaintiff,

v.

ROBERTO BORREGO, et al., 

Defendants.

/

ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s

Amended Complaint (“Motion to Dismiss”) [ECF No. 53], filed on December 7, 2020. The 

Motion to Dismiss was referred to Magistrate Judge Dave Lee Brannon for a Report and 

Recommendation (“Report”) [ECF No. 64]. On May 7, 2021, Magistrate Judge Brannon issued a 

Report recommending that the Motion to Dismiss be granted in part and denied in part

[ECF No. 65]. Specifically, the R&R concludes that the Amended Complaint is “an impermissible 

shotgun pleading” and “does not comply with Rules 8(a)(2) and 10(b)” [ECF No. 65, pp. 4-5]. 

The R&R recommends that the Amended Complaint be denied without prejudice so that Plaintiff 

may plead his case in accordance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) and 10(b) 

[ECF No. 65, p. 5].

On May 21, 2021, Plaintiff timely filed a response to the R&R, objecting to the

characterization of the Amended Complaint as a “shotgun pleading,” and stating that “the facts 

outlined in the complaint necessarily apply to all of the Defendants” [ECF No. 67 ¶ 2]. Assuming 

the R&R is adopted, Plaintiff further requests leave to file a Second Amended Complaint in 

Case 9:20-cv-81123-AMC Document 70 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/01/2021 Page 1 of 3
CASE NO. 20-81123-CIV-CANNON/Reinhart

2

accordance with the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation [ECF No. 67 ¶¶ 4-10]. The Court later 

struck Plaintiff’s response to the R&R to the extent it sought leave of Court to amend a pleading 

because the motion did not contain a certificate of conference, as required by S.D. Fla. L.R. 

7.1(a)(3) [ECF No. 68].

The Court has conducted a de novo review of the R&R and the record in this case and is 

otherwise fully advised in the premises. Upon review, the Court finds the R&R to be well-reasoned 

and correct. The Court therefore agrees with the analysis in the R&R and concludes that 

Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss should be GRANTED IN PART for the reasons set forth therein.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED as follows:

1. The R&R [ECF No. 65] is ADOPTED; 

2. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss [ECF No. 53] is GRANTED IN PART;

3. Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint [ECF No. 39] is DISMISSED WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE;

4. Plaintiff will have one final opportunity to file an amended complaint.

5. Any second amended complaint must be filed on or before June 16, 2021. 

6. Plaintiff is advised that its second amended complaint must avoid incorporating 

into successive counts all preceding allegations and counts; must clearly identify 

the particular factual allegations relevant to each count; and must specify in explicit 

terms the exact cause of action in each count and against whom each cause of action 

is alleged. See generally Weiland v. Palm Beach Cty. Sheriff’s Office, 792 F.3d 

1313, 1321-23 (11th Cir. 2015).

Case 9:20-cv-81123-AMC Document 70 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/01/2021 Page 2 of 3
CASE NO. 20-81123-CIV-CANNON/Reinhart

3

7. Defendants will have 14 days from the filing of Plaintiff’s amended pleading to file 

separate answers or a single combined responsive motion. Fed. R. Civ. P. 

15(a)(3).

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Fort Pierce, Florida this 1st day of June 2021.

 _________________________________

 AILEEN M. CANNON

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

cc: counsel of record

Case 9:20-cv-81123-AMC Document 70 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/01/2021 Page 3 of 3