Bishop v. Harper et al

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO.: 25-CV-80606-WPD
KAREN BISHOP,
Plaintiff,
v.
BRADLEY HARPER, GEORGE LAGOS,
SHAWNA LAMB, MAY LEE DEJESUS,
CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH,
Defendants.
___________________________________/
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE;
OVERRULING OBJECTIONS;
DISMISSING SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT WITH PREJUDICE
THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon the January 15, 2026 Report and
Recommendation of Magistrate Judge William Matthewman (the “Report”) [DE 51]. The Court
has conducted a de novo review of the Report [DE 51], Plaintiff Karen L. Bishop (“Plaintiff”)’s
Objection to Report and Recommendation [DE 52], 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
Case 9:25-cv-80606-WPD Document 53 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/28/2026 Page 1 of 2

2
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
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
dismissal should be with prejudice, as the Court has already provided Plaintiff with two chances
to replead her complaint and has instructed her on how to do so.
For the foregoing reasons, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
1. 	The Report [DE 51] is hereby APPROVED;
2. 	The Second Amended Complaint [DE 46] is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE;
3. 	The Clerk shall CLOSE this case and DENY AS MOOT any pending motions.
4. 	The Clerk shall email a copy of this order to the Plaintiff.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Fort Lauderdale, Broward County, Florida,
this 28th day of January, 2026.
Copies furnished to:
Magistrate Judge Matthewman
Karen Bishop at email: canyonforest@gmail.com
Case 9:25-cv-80606-WPD Document 53 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/28/2026 Page 2 of 2