govinfo:USCOURTS-flsd-0_25-cv-62206-5

1 
 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 
 

AYATOLLAH HYLTON, 
 
 Plaintiff, 
 
v. 
 
CHIVONE JANEE HYLTON, et al., 
 
 Defendants. 
___________________________________/ 
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE; 
OVERRULING OBJECTIONS; 
 
THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon the April 23, 2026 Report and Recommendation 
of Magistrate Judge Augustin-Birch (the “Report”) [DE 138]. The Court has conducted a de novo 
review of the Report [DE 138], Plaintiff Ayatollah Hylton (“Plaintiff”)’s Objections to Report 
and Recommendation [DE 139], 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 0:25-cv-62206-WPD Document 140 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/08/2026 Page 1 of 3
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 the Second 
Amended Complaint should be dismissed based on the reasons stated therein. Plaintiff’s 
objections are overruled. Moreover, the Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that the motion 
for reconsideration of the Order dismissing the Second Amended Complaint with prejudice 
should be denied, as Plaintiff failed to meet the high standard for reconsideration. The Magistrate 
Judge correctly stated that, “[b]efore dismissing this case with prejudice, the Court gave Plaintiff 
multiple opportunities to amend the Complaint to comply with basic pleading standards and to 
provide factual allegations to plausibly state the claims. The Court need not grant Plaintiff 
perpetual opportunities to attempt to state a claim.” [DE 138] at p. 2. Additionally, the request 
for judicial notice is properly denied as moot. The Court did not find Plaintiff’s pleadings 
insufficient for failure to introduce evidence in support thereof; rather, none of the versions 
stated a claim upon which relief could be granted. 
For the foregoing reasons, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: 
1. The Report [DE 138] is hereby APPROVED; 
2. The Objections [DE 139] are OVERRULED; 
3. Plaintiff’s Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment [DE 126] is DENIED; 
4. Plaintiff’s Request for Judicial Notice [DE 134] is DENIED; 
5. This case shall remain CLOSED. 
6. The Clerk shall email a copy of this Order to the Plaintiff. 
Case 0:25-cv-62206-WPD Document 140 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/08/2026 Page 2 of 3
3 
 
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Fort Lauderdale, Broward County, Florida, 
this 7th day of May, 2026. 
 
 
 
 
Copies furnished to: 
Magistrate Judge Augustin-Birch 
Ayatollah Hylton at email: gwallaz@gmail.com 
Case 0:25-cv-62206-WPD Document 140 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/08/2026 Page 3 of 3

Passage view · GavelSight