THOMAS BURGESS
v.
DEPUTY WILLIAM ROTHMAN
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The district court adopted the magistrate judge's recommendation and dismissed plaintiff's second amended complaint with prejudice in a civil rights case against Deputy William Rothman. The court found that the plaintiff had multiple opportunities to state a plausible claim and failed to do so, making further amendment futile.
The court held that dismissal with prejudice is appropriate because the plaintiff had three opportunities to advance a complaint stating a plausible claim and failed to do so, and any further amendment would be futile as the alleged facts cannot support a constitutional violation.
[1] A district court may accept, reject, or modify a magistrate judge's report and recommendation.
[2] Portions of a magistrate judge's report and recommendation to which objections are made are accorded de novo review if the objections pinpoint the specific findings with…
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“the Plaintiff has had three opportunities to advance a complaint that states a plausible claim for relief, and he has failed to do so”
Establishes the basis for dismissal with prejudice—repeated failure to cure pleading defects despite multiple amendments
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe plaintiff, Thomas Burgess, filed a civil complaint against Deputy William Rothman. After two prior opportunities to amend, the plaintiff filed a S…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Constitutional Violation cases and more on FLexlaw
This matter is before the Court upon the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation [DE 53] on Defendant's Motion to Dismiss [DE 47] and Plaintiff's Objections [DE 57]. In his thorough and well-reasoned Report and Recommendation, Magistrate Judge Reinhart recommends that this case be DISMISSED with prejudice because the Plaintiff has had three opportunities to advance a complaint that states a plausible claim for relief, and he has failed to do so. Furthermore, any amendment would be futile, as the facts Plaintiff alleges cannot support a claim for any kind of constitutional violation.
A district court may accept, reject, or modify a magistrate judge's report and recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Those portions of the report and recommendation to which objections are made are accorded de novo review, if those objections “pinpoint the specific findings that the party disagrees with.” United States v. Schultz, 565 F. 3d 1353, 1360 (11th Cir. 2009); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3).
The Court, having considered Judge Reinhart's Report, Plaintiffs objections thereto, and having conducted a de novo review of the record, agrees with Judge Reinhart's well-reasoned analysis and his recommendation that this case be dismissed with prejudice.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that:
1. The Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation to District Judge [DE 53] is AFFIRMED and ADOPTED and incorporated by reference into this Court's Order.
2. Th Second Amended Complaint [DE 46] is DISMISSED with prejudice.
3. All pending motions not otherwise ruled upon are DENIED as moot.
4. This case is CLOSED.
DONE AND ORDERED in Fort Lauderdale, Florida on this 30th day of January 2026.
RODNEY SMITH UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
cc: counsel of record