UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case No. 1:22-cv-23110-KMM

KING MIGUEL EDDIE CRAYTON,

Plaintiff,

v.

OPA-LOCKA POLICE DEPARTMENT, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

ORDER

THIS CAUSE came before the Court upon Defendant Opa-Locka Police Department’s 

Motion to Dismiss. (“Motion” or “Mot”) (ECF No. 5). The matter was referred to the Honorable 

Lauren Fleischer Louis, United States Magistrate Judge. (ECF Nos. 6). On April 22, 2023, 

Magistrate Judge Louis issued a Report and Recommendation, (“R&R”) (ECF No. 21),

recommending the Motion be GRANTED, that the Opa-Locka Police Department be terminated 

as a party in this action, and that Plaintiff’s Complaint (ECF No. 1-2) be dismissed without 

prejudice for failure to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8. See R&R at 3–4, 7. No 

objections were filed, and the R&R is now ripe for review. For the following reasons, the Court

ADOPTS the R&R (ECF No. 21) and dismisses without prejudice Plaintiff’s Complaint. 

The Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or 

recommendations made by the magistrate judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Crim. P. 59(b)(3). 

The Court “must consider de novo any objection to the magistrate judge’s recommendation.” Fed. 

R. Crim. P. 59(b)(3). A de novo review is therefore required if a party files “a proper, specific 

objection” to a factual finding contained in the report. Macort v. Prem, Inc., 208 F. App’x 781, 

Case 1:22-cv-23110-KMM Document 24 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/10/2023 Page 1 of 2
2

784 (11th Cir. 2006). “It is critical that the objection be sufficiently specific and not a general 

objection to the report” to warrant de novo review. Id. Yet when a party has not properly objected 

to the magistrate judge’s findings, “the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on 

the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.” See Keaton v. United States, No. 

14-21230-CIV, 2015 WL 12780912, at *1 (S.D. Fla. May 4, 2015); see also Lopez v. Berryhill, 

No. 17-CV-24263, 2019 WL 2254704, at *2 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 26, 2019) (stating that a district judge 

“evaluate[s] portions of the R & R not objected to under a clearly erroneous standard of review” 

(citing Davis v. Apfel, 93 F. Supp. 2d 1313, 1317 (M.D. Fla. 2000))).

In her Report and Recommendation, Magistrate Judge Louis concludes that: (1) the OpaLocka Police Department is not a legal entity subject to suit, and is therefore subject to dismissal,

see R&R at 3–4; and (2) Plaintiff’s Complaint is due to be dismissed for failure to comply with 

the pleading standard set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, id. at 4–7. This Court agrees. 

Accordingly, UPON CONSIDERATION of the Motion, the R&R, the pertinent portions 

of the record, and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, it is hereby ORDERED AND 

ADJUDGED that Magistrate Judge Louis’s R&R (ECF No. 21) is ADOPTED, and Defendant 

Opa-Locka Police Department’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 5) is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s 

Complaint (ECF No. 1-2) is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The Clerk of the Court is 

instructed to CLOSE this case. Plaintiff may reopen this matter upon the filing of an amended 

complaint in conformity with this Order. 

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this _____ day of May, 2023.

K. MICHAEL MOORE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

c: All counsel of record

10th

Case 1:22-cv-23110-KMM Document 24 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/10/2023 Page 2 of 2