Evans v. Church of Scientology International et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case No. 26-cv-20389-BLOOM/Elfenbein
BRIAN EVANS,
Plaintiff,
v.
CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY
INTERNATIONAL, SKY DAYTON,
and DOES 1-10
Defendants.
_________________________/
ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions Pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1927 and the Court’s Inherent Authority, ECF No. [73] (“Motion for Sanctions”). The
Motion was referred to Magistrate Judge Marty Fulgueira Elfenbein pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636
and Local Magistrate Judge Rule 1. ECF No. [77]. On September 23, 2026, Judge Elfenbein issued
a Report and Recommendations (“R&R”) recommending that Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions be
denied because “Plaintiff fails to demonstrate that Defendant unreasonably and vexatiously
multiplied the proceedings under 28 U.S.C. § 1927 or acted in bad faith to invoke sanctions
pursuant to this Court’s inherent authority.” ECF No. [112] at 11. Plaintiff timely filed an
Objection, ECF No. [115], to which Defendant filed a Response, ECF No. [117].
Plaintiff “objects to the [R&R] recommending denial of Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions,”
and “asks this Court to review that motion de novo and to reject the recommendation of denial.”
ECF No. [115] at 3–4. Defendant responds that Plaintiff’s Objection should be overruled because
Case 1:26-cv-20389-BB Document 119 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/15/2026 Page 1 of 4

Case No. 26-cv-20389-BLOOM/Elfenbein
2
Plaintiff does not comply with the requirement that an objecting party provide specific objections
to the R&R, including the basis of the objection and supporting legal authority. ECF No. [117].
“In order to challenge the findings and recommendations of the magistrate judge, a party
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)) (alterations omitted). The objections must also present “supporting legal
authority.” S.D. Fla. L. Mag. J.R. 4(b). The portions of the R&R to which an objection is made are
reviewed de novo only 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). If a party fails to object to any portion of the magistrate judge’s report, those portions are
reviewed for clear error. Macort, 208 F. App’x at 784; see also Liberty Am. Ins. Grp., Inc. v.
WestPoint Underwriters, L.L.C., 199 F. Supp. 2d 1271, 1276 (M.D. Fla. 2001).
Plaintiff does not identify any part of the R&R that he specifically objects to nor any basis
for his general objection. Plaintiff merely requests that the Court review his Motion for Sanctions
de novo. Therefore, Plaintiff’s objections do not comply with local rules.1 Nonetheless, the Court
1 Plaintiff’s Objection “reserve[d] the right to supplement [his] objections with page-specific citations . . . .”
ECF No. [115]. On October 6, 2026, the Court entered an Order accepting his Objection as timely filed and
ordered that any further objections to the R&R must be filed by the October 7, 2026, deadline to file
objections to the R&R. ECF No. [116]. Plaintiff did not file any further objections.
On October 14, 2026, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Verify Timely October 6, 2026 Submission; Alternative
Motion for Extension of Time and Leave to Resubmit Rule 72 Objections; and Motion for Leave to Reply
to Defendant’s Response to Plaintiff’s Objections, ECF No. [118] (“Motion to Verify”). Plaintiff states that
he submitted his supplemental objections prior to the October 7 deadline and requests that the Court direct
the Clerk to search any pending or undocketed records to determine whether Plaintiff’s supplemental
objections were received. Id. at 2. If not, Plaintiff requests leave to resubmit his supplemental objections
after the deadline and seeks leave to file a reply to Defendant’s Response to his Objection. Id. at 3–4.
On October 14, 2026, the Court confirmed with the Clerk’s Office that since October 6, 2026, no filing in
this case was received other than Defendant’s Response and Plaintiff’s Motion to Verify. Because the Court
Case 1:26-cv-20389-BB Document 119 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/15/2026 Page 2 of 4

Case No. 26-cv-20389-BLOOM/Elfenbein
3
has conducted a de novo review of Judge Elfenbein’s Report and Recommendations, the record,
and is otherwise fully advised. See Williams v. McNeil, 557 F.3d 1287, 1291 (11th Cir. 2009)
(citing 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)). Upon review, the Court finds Judge Elfenbein’s Report and
Recommendations to be well reasoned and correct. The Court therefore agrees with the analysis
and concludes that Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions is denied.
Prior to the R&R, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Leave to File a Notice of Supplemental
Authority, ECF No. [108]. Plaintiff asks the Court to consider a paperless order entered by
Magistrate Judge Edwin G. Torres in a separate case, which granted Plaintiff’s Motion for Referral
to the Volunteer Attorney Program. Id. Plaintiff argues that the Order is relevant to the Motion for
Sanctions because Defendant argued in response that Plaintiff is a vexatious litigant and the Order
shows that Plaintiff’s case before Judge Torres was not frivolous. Id. The Notice of Supplemental
Authority does not alter the Court’s analysis adopting the R&R. Therefore, Plaintiff’s Motion for
Leave to File is denied as moot.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED as follows:
1. 	Plaintiff’s Objection, ECF No. [115], is OVERRULED, and Judge Elfenbein’s
Report and Recommendation, ECF No. [112], is ADOPTED IN FULL.
2. 	Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions, ECF No. [73], is DENIED.
3. 	Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File, ECF No. [108], is DENIED.
4. 	Plaintiff’s Motion to Verify or Motion for Extension, ECF No. [118], is
GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.
conducted a de novo review of the R&R and concludes the R&R is well-reasoned and correct, the Court
denies Plaintiff’s request for an extension to file supplemental objections and reply to Defendant’s
Response. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion to Verify is granted to the extent the Court confirmed that no
filing was received by the Clerk and is not on the case docket. As such, it is denied to the extent Plaintiff
requests an extension to file supplemental objections and a reply.
Case 1:26-cv-20389-BB Document 119 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/15/2026 Page 3 of 4

Case No. 26-cv-20389-BLOOM/Elfenbein
4
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers in Miami, Florida, on October 14, 2026.
______________________________
BETH BLOOM
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Copies to:
Counsel of Record
Brian Evans, pro se
2080 South Ocean Drive
#1505
Hallandale Beach, FL 33009
Email: belasvegas@yahoo.com
Case 1:26-cv-20389-BB Document 119 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/15/2026 Page 4 of 4