govinfo:USCOURTS-flsd-0_26-cv-60722-1

1 
 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 
 

EREMI MONCION, 
 
 Plaintiff, 
 
v. 
 
BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA, et al., 
 
 Defendants. 
___________________________________/ 
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE; 
OVERRULING OBJECTIONS; DISMISSING ACTION 
 
THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon the June 1, 2026 Report and Recommendation of 
Magistrate Judge Strauss (the “Report”) [DE 21]. The Court has conducted a de novo review of 
the Report [DE 21], Plaintiff Eremi Moncion (“Plaintiff”)’s Objections to Report and 
Recommendation [DE 22], and 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 
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 
Case 0:26-cv-60722-WPD Document 23 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/03/2026 Page 1 of 2
2 
 
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). Accordingly, the Court has undertaken a de novo review of the 
record and Plaintiff’s Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation. 
The Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s conclusions in the Report that this action 
should be dismissed based on the reasons thoroughly explained stated therein. Plaintiff’s 
objections are overruled. The Magistrate Judge correctly stated that, “[w]hen I provided Plaintiff 
with an opportunity to file an amended complaint, I plainly pointed out the foregoing deficiency 
(and others) to Plaintiff. Yet, Plaintiff has failed to remedy the deficiencies that I noted. Because 
Plaintiff still fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, this action should be 
dismissed.” [DE 21] at p. 9. The Court need not grant Plaintiff perpetual opportunities to attempt 
to state a claim, particularly when the Court provides Plaintiff with guidance on amendment 
which Plaintiff disregarded. 
For the foregoing reasons, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: 
1. The Report [DE 21] is hereby APPROVED; 
2. The above-style action is hereby DISMISSED; 
3. The Clerk shall CLOSE this case and DENY AS MOOT any pending motions. 
4. The Clerk shall email a copy of this Order to the Plaintiff. 
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Fort Lauderdale, Broward County, Florida, 
this 3rd day of June, 2026. 
 
 
 
Copies furnished to: 
Counsel of record and pro se parties 
Magistrate Judge Strauss 
Case 0:26-cv-60722-WPD Document 23 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/03/2026 Page 2 of 2

Passage view · GavelSight