LEWIS v. CITY OF PENSACOLA et al

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
PENSACOLA DIVISION
PRESTON LEWIS,
Plaintiff,
v. 	Case No.: 3:25cv1265/TKW/ZCB
PENSACOLA POLICE
OFFICER MADISE,
Defendant.
/
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
On 	September 	22, 	2025, 	the 	Court 	screened 	Plaintiff’s 	prior
complaint (Doc. 8) and advised Plaintiff of several pleading deficiencies
in the complaint. 	(Doc. 10). 	Plaintiff was ordered to file an amended
complaint to correct these deficiencies. 	(Id. at 1-2, 25-26). 	Plaintiff was
warned 	that 	failure 	to 	comply 	with 	the 	order 	would 	result 	in 	a
recommendation of dismissal.1 	(Id. at 25-26).
Instead of complying with the Court’s order to file an amended
complaint that addressed the issues raised by the Court, Plaintiff decided
to simply re-file the same complaint that the Court had told him was
deficient. Indeed, every paragraph of allegations in Plaintiff’s prior
1 Plaintiff was also advised that in lieu of filing an amended complaint,
he could file a notice of voluntary dismissal. (Doc. 10 at 26).
Case 3:25-cv-01265-TKW-ZCB Document 12 Filed 11/13/25 Page 1 of 3

2
deficient complaint and the newly-filed complaint appear to be identical.
(Compare Doc. 11 at ¶¶ 1-47, with Doc. 8 at ¶¶ 1-47).
Plaintiff, therefore, has disregarded the Court’s prior order (Doc.
10). And this is not the first time that Plaintiff has failed to comply with
Court orders.2 	Thus, dismissal is warranted. 	See N.D. Fla. Loc. R. 41.1
(authorizing dismissal if a “party fails to comply with an applicable rule
or a court order”); see also Powell v. Harris, 628 F. App’x 679, 680-881
(11th Cir. 2015) (affirming dismissal without prejudice for failure to
comply where “[d]espite the magistrate judge’s order to correct the issues,
Powell filed another complaint containing the same issues”).
Accordingly, it is respectfully RECOMMENDED that this case be
DISMISSED without prejudice for Plaintiff’s failure to comply with
an order of the Court (Doc. 10). The Clerk of Court should be directed to
close the case.
2 See Lewis v. Pensacola Police Dep’t, No. 3:24CV457-TKW-HTC, 2024
WL 5006302, at *1-3 (N.D. Fla. Nov. 8, 2024) (dismissing for failure to
comply with a Court order and identifying four ways Plaintiff failed to
comply 	with 	a 	prior 	amend 	order 	including, 	inter 	alia, 	reasserting
insufficient claims), adopted, 2024 WL 4880522 (N.D. Fla. Nov. 25, 2024);
Lewis v. Santa Rosa Cnty. Sheriff’s Off., No. 3:24CV499-MCR-HTC, 2024
WL 6142378, at *1-3 (N.D. Fla. Dec. 17, 2024) (dismissing for failure to
comply with Court orders), adopted, 2025 WL 2161199 (N.D. Fla. July
30, 2025).
Case 3:25-cv-01265-TKW-ZCB Document 12 Filed 11/13/25 Page 2 of 3

3
At Pensacola, Florida, this 13th day of November 2025.
/s/ Zachary C. Bolitho
Zachary C. Bolitho
United States Magistrate Judge
Notice To The Parties
Objections to these proposed findings and recommendations must
be 	filed 	within 	fourteen 	days 	of 	the 	date 	of 	the 	Report 	and
Recommendation. 	Any 	different 	deadline 	that 	may 	appear 	on 	the
electronic 	docket 	is 	for 	the 	court’s 	internal 	use 	only 	and 	does 	not
control. 	An objecting party must serve a copy of the objections on all
other parties. 	A party who fails to object to the magistrate judge’s
findings or recommendations contained in a report and recommendation
waives the right to challenge on appeal the district court’s order based on
unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions. 	See 11th Cir. Rule 3-1; 28
U.S.C. § 636.
Case 3:25-cv-01265-TKW-ZCB Document 12 Filed 11/13/25 Page 3 of 3