CLINE v. BANKS et al

Page 1 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
PENSACOLA DIVISION
BUCCIE CLINE III,
Plaintiff,
v. Case No. 3:25-cv-2684-TKW-ZCB
DEPUTY BANKS, et al.,
Defendants.
/
ORDER
This case is before the Court based on the magistrate judge’s Report and
Recommendation (Doc. 9) and Plaintiff’s objection (Doc. 10). The Court reviewed
the issues raised in the objection de novo under 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1) and Fed. R.
Civ. P. 72(b)(3), and based on that review, the Court agrees with the magistrate
judge’s determination that the excessive force claim against Defendant Banks
(Claim 2) should be dismissed for failure to state a plausible claim for relief.
The Court did not overlook Plaintiff’s request for leave to “amend or
supplement” the excessive force claim. Generally, leave to amend should be “freely
give[n] … when justice so requires,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2), but leave to amend
can be denied based on a “repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments
previously allowed,” Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962), and here Plaintiff
Case 3:25-cv-02684-TKW-ZCB Document 11 Filed 07/10/26 Page 1 of 2

Page 2 of 2
has had multiple opportunities to plead a legally sufficient excessive force claim, see
Doc. 9 at 2 n.1. Thus, leave to amend that claim will be denied.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that:
1. The magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation is adopted and
incorporated by reference in this Order.
2. The excessive force claim against Defendant Banks (Claim 2) is
DISMISSED under 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) for failure to state a claim on which
relief can be granted.
3. This case is returned to the magistrate judge for further proceedings on
the other claims in the second amended complaint (Claims 1 and 3).
DONE AND ORDERED this 10th day of July, 2026.
__________________________________
T. KENT WETHERELL, II
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 3:25-cv-02684-TKW-ZCB Document 11 Filed 07/10/26 Page 2 of 2