govinfo:USCOURTS-flsd-0_25-cv-61995-2

1 
 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 
 
CASE NO.: 25-CV- 61995-WPD 
LUC WILSEN JOSEPH, 
 
 Plaintiff, 
 
v.   
 
STEPHEN BEITING, ESQ., et al., 
 
 Defendants. 
___________________________________/ 
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE; 
OVERRULING OBJECTIONS; CLOSING CASE 
 
THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon the May 20, 2026 Report and Recommendation 
of Magistrate Judge Jared M. Strauss (the “Report”) [DE 18]. The Court has conducted a de novo 
review of the Report [DE 18], pro se Plaintiff Luc Wilsen Joseph  (“Plaintiff”)’s “Statement to 
Clarify my Intentions and Concerns Regarding This Matter”  [DE 19], 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 
Case 0:25-cv-61995-WPD   Document 20   Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2026   Page 1 of 3
2 
 
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). 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 stated therein. Plaintiff’s objections are overruled.  
After dismissing Plaintiff’s original complaint as a shotgun pleading on March 25, 2026, the 
Magistrate Judge provided Plaintiff three weeks, until April 15, 2026, to file an amended 
complaint. That deadline —plus  one month—passed, and no amended complaint  was filed . 
Moreover, in his response to the Report, Plaintiff still does not attach any amended complaint or 
indicate that one is forthcoming.  
 Where a party fails to adequately prosecute their case or fails to comply with court 
orders, as here, the Court may dismiss the action. See Gratton v. Great Am. Commc’ns, 178 F.3d 
1373, 1374 (11th Cir. 1999) . As the Magistrate Judge correctly noted, “[b] ecause Plaintiff has 
failed to prosecute his case by not following the Court’s directives and has failed to rectify the 
shotgun nature of his Complaint,” the action is subject to dismissal. [DE 18] p. 4. In addition, the 
action is dismissed for want of an operative pleading.  
Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: 
1. The Report [DE 18] is hereby APPROVED; 
2. The Objections [DE 19] are OVERRULED; 
3. This action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE; 
Case 0:25-cv-61995-WPD   Document 20   Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2026   Page 2 of 3
3 
 
4. The Clerk is DIRECTED to CLOSE this case.  
5. The Clerk shall email a copy of this Order to the Plaintiff. 
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Fort Lauderdale, Broward County, Florida, 
this 29th day of May, 2026. 
 
 
 
 
Copies furnished to: 
Magistrate Judge Strauss 
Luc Wilsen Joseph 
3570 W. Hillsboro Blvd 
Apt. 103 
Coconut Creek, FL 33073 
440-600-4939 
Email: m458007@gmail.com 
PRO SE 
Case 0:25-cv-61995-WPD   Document 20   Entered on FLSD Docket 05/29/2026   Page 3 of 3

Passage view · GavelSight