PRIBYL

v.

SIS FDC TALLAHASSEE

vs. SIS-FDC-TALLAHASSEE, et al,

Defendants. ____________________________/ ORDER and REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, has filed a second amended complaint, ECF No. 35, in this civil rights action brought pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bur. of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971). This version of Plaintiff’s complaint has been reviewed as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Additionally, Plaintiff has filed a “motion to confirm Defendants.” ECF No. 39. Plaintiff’s motion is denied because Plaintiff’s request for relief is not clear. It is unclear whether Plaintiff is requesting that this Court confirm the name and title of the warden listed in his second amended complaint, or to confirm that this case proceeds against Warden Coil and several other officers from the Federal Detention Facility in Tallahassee.¹ Because Plaintiff’s motion cannot be understood, it is denied.

Plaintiff also filed a “motion” seeking an explanation concerning the Report and Recommendation. ECF No. 40. Plaintiff says that he is confused about the notice which is on the bottom of the Report and

Recommendation. Id. Plaintiff need not be concerned about the notice portion of the prior Report and Recommendation, ECF No. 34,2 because it has been vacated. This motion is also denied. As for Plaintiff’s second amended complaint, ECF No. 35, Plaintiff seeks to bring claims against: (1) the warden of FDC - Tallahassee, R.E. Coil; (2) an unknown officer of the “SIS - FDC - Tallahassee;” (3) J. Lynch, identified as “SIS Property Officer;” and (4) Officer/Director Mr. Profit. ECF

No. 35. Plaintiff continues to indicate that he sues all Defendants in both their individual and official capacities. ECF No. 35 at 2-3, 14. However, as

Moreover, Plaintiff’s allegations do not state a claim against any named Defendant. In general, Plaintiff alleges that he had property intentionally stolen while he was housed at F.D.C. in violation of the Fifth

Amendment. ECF No. 35 at 5-6. Plaintiff indicates that another inmate came to his cell and put a file on his bed saying, “think this is yours.” Id. at 5. Plaintiff alleges that he reported it to his lawyer. Id. Plaintiff also

Plaintiff has not provided facts which reveal that any named Defendant violated his rights. Plaintiff has not identified any specific person who allegedly, intentionally, deprived him of his property. Without such an allegation, Plaintiff’s claim cannot succeed.

Considering the number of opportunities Plaintiff has already been provided in which to submit a viable complaint, it does not appear that further opportunities would be beneficial. Accordingly, it is recommended that Plaintiff second amended complaint, ECF No. 25, be dismissed for failure to state a claim. Accordingly, it is

ORDERED: 1. Plaintiff’s motion to confirm, ECF No. 39, is DENIED. 2. Plaintiff’s motion to explain, ECF No. 40, is DENIED.

RECOMMENDATION

It is respectfully RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s second amended complaint, ECF No. 35, be DISMISSED for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), and that the Order adopting this Report and Recommendation direct the Clerk of

Court to note on the docket that this case was dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). IN CHAMBERS at Tallahassee, Florida, on October 2, 2019.

S/ Charles A. Stampelos

CHARLES A. STAMPELOS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

NOTICE TO THE PLAINTIFF

Within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy of this Report and Recommendation, Plaintiff may serve and file specific written objections to this proposed recommendation. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). By failing to object to a particular claim or issue contained in this Report and Recommendation, Plaintiff may waive the right to challenge on appeal the District Judge’s order based on any unobjectedto factual or legal conclusions. See 11th Cir. Rule 3-1; 28 U.S.C. § 636.