Page 1 of 5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

DALE A. CASTRO,

Plaintiff,

vs. Case No.: 3:20cv2337/LAC/EMT

WARDEN C. MAIORANA,

Defendant.

___________________________________/

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff Dale A. Castro (“Castro”), an inmate of the Florida Department of 

Corrections (“FDOC”) proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, has filed a civil 

rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (ECF No. 1). 

This case was referred to the undersigned for the issuance of all preliminary 

orders and any recommendations to the district court regarding dispositive matters. 

See N.D. Fla. Loc. R. 72.2(C); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), (C); Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 72(b). After careful consideration of the issues presented in Castro’s Complaint, 

it is the opinion of the undersigned that his Complaint should be dismissed for failure 

to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), 1915A(b)(1). 

Case 3:20-cv-02749-LC-EMT Document 17 Filed 06/25/20 Page 1 of 5
Page 2 of 5

Case No.: 3:20cv2337/LAC/EMT

I. STATUTORY SCREENING STANDARD

Because Castro is a prisoner proceeding in forma pauperis, the court must 

dismiss this case if the court determines that his Complaint fails to state a claim upon 

which relief may be granted. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), 1915A(b)(1). 

Dismissals for failure to state a claim are governed by the same standard as Rule 

12(b)(6). See Mitchell v. Farcass, 112 F.3d 1483, 1490 (11th Cir. 1997). The 

allegations of the Complaint are taken as true and construed in the light most 

favorable to Castro. See Davis v. Monroe Cty. Bd. of Educ., 120 F.3d 1390, 1393 

(11th Cir. 1997). 

To survive dismissal at the screening phase, a complaint must contain 

sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible 

on its face. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (internal quotation marks 

and citation omitted). Plausibility means “more than a sheer possibility that a 

defendant has acted unlawfully.” Id. The determination of whether a complaint 

states a plausible claim for relief is “a context-specific task that requires the 

reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and common sense.” Id. at 679 

(citation omitted). The court is “not bound to accept as true a legal conclusion 

couched as a factual allegation.” Id. at 678 (quotation marks and citation omitted). 

And “bare assertions” that “amount to nothing more than a “formulaic recitation of 

Case 3:20-cv-02749-LC-EMT Document 17 Filed 06/25/20 Page 2 of 5
Page 3 of 5

Case No.: 3:20cv2337/LAC/EMT

the elements” of a claim “are conclusory and not entitled to be assumed true.” Id. at 

681 (quotation marks and citation omitted). Stated succinctly:

 Pleadings that, because they are no more than conclusions, are not 

entitled to the assumption of truth. While legal conclusions can provide 

the framework of a complaint, they must be supported by factual 

allegations. When there are well-pleaded factual allegations, a court 

should assume their veracity and then determine whether they plausibly 

give rise to an entitlement to relief.

Id. at 679.

II. DISCUSSION

Castro names C. Maiorana, the Warden of Blackwater River Correctional 

Facility, as the sole Defendant in this case (ECF No. 1 at 1–2). Quite simply, Castro

states he wants to change his name to John Doe (id. at 3–5). Presumably, Warden 

Maiorana denied his request.

Castro’s Complaint does not mention any federal law that Warden Maiorana

violated, or any conduct which deprived him (Castro) of a constitutional right. 

Furthermore, Warden Maiorana has no legal authority to grant Castro a legal name 

change. Under Florida law, only Florida state courts have jurisdiction to change the 

name of any person residing in the state. See Fla. Stat. § 68.07.1

 Therefore, if 

1 Castro is advised that if he was convicted of a felony after June 15, 1995, his civil rights 

have been suspended, see Fla. Stat. § 944.292(1), and he is not eligible for a legal name change. 

See Fla. Stat. § 68.07(2)(l); see also Finfrock v. State, 932 So. 2d 437, 438 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006). 

Case 3:20-cv-02749-LC-EMT Document 17 Filed 06/25/20 Page 3 of 5
Page 4 of 5

Case No.: 3:20cv2337/LAC/EMT

Warden Maiorana denied Castro’s request for a name change, this conduct did not 

violate Castro’s state or federal rights.

III. CONCLUSION

Accepting Castro’s factual allegations as true and liberally construing them in 

the light most favorable to Castro, he has not alleged facts which state a plausible 

federal claim against Warden Maiorana. Ordinarily, a party must be given at least 

one opportunity to amend before the district court dismisses the complaint. See 

Corsello v. Lincare, Inc., 428 F.3d 1008, 1014 (11th Cir. 2005). However, “[a] 

district court need not . . . allow an amendment . . . where amendment would be 

futile.” Bryant v. Dupree, 252 F.3d 1161, 1163 (11th Cir. 2001). Here, Castro’s 

claim concerning Warden Maiorana’s failure to change his name is unarguably 

without legal merit, and the pleading deficiency cannot be cured by amendment. 

Therefore, this action should be dismissed, with prejudice, for failure to state a claim 

upon which relief may be granted, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(b)(ii) and 

§ 1915A(b)(1).2

2 The “Relief” section of the complaint form instructs Castro to state briefly what he wants 

the court to do for him (see ECF No. 1 at 5). Castro wrote, “My name to be John Doe, and my 

medical needs.” (id.). If Castro wishes to bring federal claims concerning his medical treatment 

at Blackwater River C.F. (or lack thereof), he may assert those claims in a separate civil rights 

action.

Case 3:20-cv-02749-LC-EMT Document 17 Filed 06/25/20 Page 4 of 5
Page 5 of 5

Case No.: 3:20cv2337/LAC/EMT

Accordingly, it is respectfully RECOMMENDED:

1. This case be DISMISSED with prejudice for failure to state a claim 

upon which relief may be granted, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and 

§ 1915A(b)(1); and

2. The clerk of court be directed to enter judgment accordingly and close 

the case.

DONE AND ORDERED this 19th day of May 2020.

/s/ Elizabeth M. Timothy 

ELIZABETH M. TIMOTHY

CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

NOTICE TO THE PARTIES

Objections to these proposed findings and recommendations must be 

filed within fourteen (14) days after being served a copy thereof. Any different 

deadline that may appear on the electronic docket is for the court’s internal use 

only and does not control. A copy of objections must be served upon all other 

parties. If a party fails to object to the magistrate judge’s findings or 

recommendations as to any particular claim or issue contained in a report and 

recommendation, that party waives the right to challenge on appeal the district 

court’s order based on the unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions. See 11th 

Cir. Rule 3-1; 28 U.S.C. § 636.

Case 3:20-cv-02749-LC-EMT Document 17 Filed 06/25/20 Page 5 of 5