SHEAN v. HARRIS et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TALLAHASSEE DIVISION
DORA RENEE SHEAN,
Plaintiff,
v. 	Case No.: 4:24cv529-MW/MAF
SHEVAUN HARRIS, et al.,
Defendants.
___________________________/
ORDER VACATING ORDER AND JUDGMENT, CONSIDERING
OBJECTIONS, AND ADOPTING IN PART
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
This Court previously rejected in part and adopted in part the Magistrate
Judge’s report and recommendation without objection from either side and directed
judgment 	be 	entered 	dismissing 	Plaintiff’s 	case 	as 	barred 	by 	the statute 	of
limitations. habeas petition for lack of jurisdiction. ECF Nos. 73 and 74. On
February 23, 2026, however, this Court received Plaintiff’s objections due to a delay
in the mail. ECF No. 75. Accordingly, this Court directs the Clerk is directed to
VACATE this Court’s order, ECF No. 73, and the judgment, ECF No. 74, so that
this Court can consider Plaintiff’s objections.
Having considered Plaintiff’s objection, ECF No. 75, de novo, this Court is
not persuaded that they change anything with respect to Plaintiff’s failure to allege
facts demonstrating that the statute of limitations should have been tolled. Moreover,
Case 4:24-cv-00529-MW-MAF Document 76 Filed 02/25/26 Page 1 of 2

2
Plaintiff’s amended complaint is still a shotgun pleading and fails to state a claim
for relief. This Court again accepts in part, rejects in part, and adopts in part the
report and recommendation, ECF No. 70, as this Court’s opinion. The pending
motions to dismiss, ECF Nos. 59, 60, and 66, are GRANTED insofar as Plaintiff
has not alleged facts that would toll the statute of limitations, and thus, her claims
are barred by the statute of limitations. If the statute of limitations were not at issue,
Plaintiff’s amended complaint is also due to be dismissed as a shotgun pleading and
for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. The Clerk shall enter
judgment stating, “Plaintiff’s amended complaint, ECF No. 58, is DISMISSED
with prejudice as barred by the statute of limitations.”1 The Clerk shall close the
file.
SO ORDERED on February 25, 2026.
s/Mark E. Walker
United States District Judge
1 Were this case only subject to dismissal for failure to state a claim, the dismissal would
likely be without prejudice and with leave to amend a second time. However, since the statute of
limitations bars Plaintiff’s claims, the dismissal is with prejudice.
Case 4:24-cv-00529-MW-MAF Document 76 Filed 02/25/26 Page 2 of 2