UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 20-81137-CIV-DIMITROULEAS

LINDA HAMILTON,

Plaintiffs,

v.

NATASHA SHEPARD and CITIBANK,

Defendants.

___________________________________/

ORDER APPROVING REPORT OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE

THIS CAUSE is before the Court on Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss [DE 50], 

Defendant’s Motion to Vacate Entry of Default Judgment [DE 51], Plaintiff’s Motion to Change 

Venue [DE 52], Plaintiff’s Motion to Object Order to Vacate and order to grant Summary 

Judgement [DE 57] and the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge William 

Matthewman (the “Report”) [DE 59]. The Court has conducted a de novo review of the Report 

[DE 59] and Plaintiff’s Notice of Appeal [DE 60]. The Court 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 

Case 9:20-cv-81137-WPD Document 61 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/20/2021 Page 1 of 4
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).

In response to the Report entered by Judge Matthewman, Plaintiff filed a “Notice of 

Appeal” on July 19, 2021. [DE 60]. This Notice of Appeal merely gives this Court notice that 

Plaintiff is appealing Judge Matthewman’s Order and asks the Court to “accept and review all 

findings in this matter according to Fed. R. App. P 4(c)(1).” [DE 60]. Judge Matthewman 

informed Plaintiff in his Report that “[t]he parties shall have fourteen (14) days from the date of 

being served with a copy of this Report and Recommendation within which to file written 

objections, if any, with United States District Judge William P. Dimitrouleas. Failure to file 

objections timely shall bar the parties from a de novo determination by the District Judge of an 

issue covered in the Report and Recommendation and shall bar the parties from attacking on 

appeal unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions contained in this Report and 

Recommendation....” 

While Plaintiff failed to object to specific factual and legal conclusions as required in 

filing an objection to a Magistrate Judge’s report and recommendation, the Court has conducted 

a de novo review of the Report. The Court agrees with the analysis and conclusions set forth in 

Magistrate Judge Matthewman’s well-reasoned Report. 

It appears clear to the Court that Defendants’ were never properly served in compliance 

with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4, and, accordingly, the final default judgment must be 

Case 9:20-cv-81137-WPD Document 61 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/20/2021 Page 2 of 4
vacated. Further, the Court agrees with Magistrate Judge Matthewman that the complaint fails to 

state a claim against “Citibank” or Defendant Shepard. 

For the foregoing reasons, the Court will adopt the Report, dismiss Plaintiff’s claims, and 

grant Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint on or before August 2, 2021. The Court will 

also set a deadline for Plaintiff to timely serve the defendants with any amended complaint on or 

before September 2, 2021. 

Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:

1. The Report and Recommendation [DE 59] is hereby ADOPTED and 

APPROVED; 

2. The Notice of Appeal, construed as an Objection [DE 60] is OVERRULED;

3. Defendants’ Motion to Vacate Entry of Default Judgment [DE 51] is 

GRANTED; the Amended Final Default Judgment [DE 45] is VACATED and 

SET ASIDE; the entry of the Clerk’s default [DE 36] is VACATED and SET 

ASIDE; 

4. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss [DE 50] is GRANTED; Plaintiff’s Complaint 

[DE 1] is DISMISSED without prejudice; Plaintiff is granted leave to file an 

amended complaint on or before August 2, 2021. Plaintiff must properly serve 

any defendant with any amended complaint on or before September 3, 2021. 

5. Plaintiff’s Motion to Change Venue [DE 52] is DENIED as moot; Plaintiff can 

renew any argument raised, if necessary, after filing a valid complaint and 

performing proper service over any defendant.

6. To the extent Plaintiff’s “Motion to Object Order to Vacate and order to grant 

Summary Judgement” [DE 57] seeks relief, it is DENIED without prejudice; 

Case 9:20-cv-81137-WPD Document 61 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/20/2021 Page 3 of 4
Plaintiff can renew any argument raised, if necessary, after filing a valid 

complaint and performing proper service over any defendant;

7. Plaintiff’s failure to timely file an amended complaint or to timely and properly 

serve any defendant with process may result in the Court closing this case without 

further notice. 

8. The Clerk is DIRECTED to mail a copy of this Order to the parties at the address 

listed below. 

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Fort Lauderdale, Broward County, Florida, 

this 19th day of July, 2021.

Copies furnished to:

All Counsel of Record

Linda Hamilton 

11192 Tangerine Blvd. 

West Palm Beach, FL 33412

Case 9:20-cv-81137-WPD Document 61 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/20/2021 Page 4 of 4