Perry v. Boor et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO. 25-62197-CIV-SINGHAL
WILLIE PERRY,
Plaintiff,
v.
JULIANNA BOORS and TALISA JENKINS,
Defendants.
___________________________________/
ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT
THIS CAUSE is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation issued by
Magistrate Judge Strauss (DE [13]) (“Report”) on December 22, 2025. 	In the Report,
Judge Strauss recommended that the action be dismissed without prejudice (DE [13]).
The Report explained that (i) the Amended Complaint was a shotgun pleading, and
Plaintiff had already been granted leave to amend; (ii) Plaintiff brings a Bivens action, and
the Supreme Court has not recognized a Bivens claim under the Fourteenth Amendment
(iii) if Plaintiff could bring a Bivens claim under the Fourteenth Amendment, the
Fourteenth Amendment applies only to states and state actors, and Plaintiff makes no
allegations that Defendants are state actors subject to the Fourteenth Amendment; and
(iv) even if Defendants were state actors, Plaintiff has not alleged waiver of sovereign
immunity.
On 	January 5, 2026, Plaintiff filed his 	Objection/Motion [for] District 	Judge
Recommendation (DE [16]) with this Court. Defendants have not been served, so there
is no need to wait for their reply. As a preliminary matter, Plaintiff asks that this case be
Case 0:25-cv-62197-AHS Document 18 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/26/2026 Page 1 of 3

2
ruled on by a district judge. 	((DE [16]), at 2). 	This case has been resigned to the
Undersigned, and this Court has reviewed the issues raised in the Complaint de novo.
When a party objects to a magistrate judge’s findings, the district court must “make
a de novo determination of those portions of the report ... to which objection is made.” 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.” 	Id. 	The district court
must consider the record and factual issues independent of the magistrate judge's report,
as de novo review is essential to the constitutionality of § 636. Jeffrey S. v. State Bd. of
Educ., 896 F.2d 507, 513 (11th Cir. 1990).
First, Plaintiff states that “Defendants [are] treating the Plaintiff [with] hate and
prejudice!!!” While this Court sympathizes with Plaintiff’s financial hardship, this objection
is not a legal argument sufficient to alter Judge Strauss’ thoughtful analysis.
Second, Plaintiff argues that Defendants “tried to poison the Plaintiff” and attached
a letter from the Department of Veterans Affairs stating that his fluticasone nasal spray
was “being recalled due to sterility concerns.” 	((DE [16], 3-4). 	This argument too does
not 	address 	the 	deficiencies 	that 	Judge Strauss 	highlights 	in the 	Report. 	More
importantly, the letter warns Plaintiff of a recall of his medication and provides no support
for Plaintiff’s argument the Department of Veteran Affairs tried to poison him.
Third, Plaintiff argues that the Social Security Administration was not authorized to
report his information to the Department of Veteran Affairs. 	Here, Plaintiff is simply
repeating the allegations contained in the Amended Complaint and once again, fails to
address any of the concerns raised in the Report.
Case 0:25-cv-62197-AHS Document 18 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/26/2026 Page 2 of 3

3
After reviewing Plaintiff’s objections, and after careful independent consideration
of Plaintiff’s arguments, this Court affirms and adopts Judge Strauss’s conclusions in the
Report and Recommendation.
I. 	CONCLUSION
It is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the magistrate judge’s Report and
Recommendation (DE [13]) is AFFIRMED and ADOPTED. 	It is FURTHER ORDERED
that 	Plaintiff’s 	Objections 	to 	the 	Report 	and 	Recommendation 	(DE 	[16]) 	are
OVERRULED. 	All causes raised herein by the complaint are DISMISSED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE this case and DENY AS MOOT
any pending motions.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, this 26th day of
January 2026.
Copies furnished counsel via CM/ECF
Case 0:25-cv-62197-AHS Document 18 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/26/2026 Page 3 of 3