govinfo:USCOURTS-flsd-0_26-cv-61339-2

1 
 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 
 

TOMEKA LANAY JONES, 
 
 Plaintiff, 
 
v. 
 
MEMORIAL HEALTHCARE 
SYSTEM/BROWARD HOSPITAL 
DISTRICT, 
 
 Defendant. 
___________________________________/ 
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE; 
OVERRULING OBJECTIONS; DISMISSING ACTION 
 
THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon the June 2 , 2026 Report and Recommendation of 
Magistrate Judge Strauss (the “Report”) [DE 12]. The Court has conducted a de novo review of 
the Report [DE 12 ], Plaintiff Tomeka Lanay Jones (“Plaintiff”)’s Objections to Report and 
Recommendation [DE 14] 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 
Case 0:26-cv-61339-WPD Document 15 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/15/2026 Page 1 of 3
2 
 
783-84; 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). 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, “[t] he Court does not need 
to give Plaintiff further leave to amend because she has already been given one chance to 
amend . . . Despite this opportunity, Plaintiff has failed to rectify the deficiencies in her 
allegations.” [DE 12] p. 6. 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 12] is hereby APPROVED; 
2. The above-style action is hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE; 
3. The Clerk shall CLOSE this case and DENY AS MOOT any pending motions. 
4. The Clerk shall email and mail a copy of this Order to the Plaintiff at the addresses 
below. 
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Fort Lauderdale, Broward County, Florida, 
this 15th day of June, 2026. 
 
 
 
 
 
Case 0:26-cv-61339-WPD Document 15 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/15/2026 Page 2 of 3
3 
 
Copies furnished to: 
Counsel of record and pro se parties 
Magistrate Judge Strauss 
 
Tomeka Lanay Jones 
6410 NW 6 Avenue 
Apt 1 
Miami, FL 33150 
786-386-6520 
Email: tomekajones81@gmail.com 
PRO SE 
 
Case 0:26-cv-61339-WPD Document 15 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/15/2026 Page 3 of 3

Passage view · GavelSight