IVEY v. GLASS et al

Page 1 of 4
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TALLAHASSEE DIVISION
STEVEN IVEY,
Plaintiff,
vs. 	Case No. 4:25cv473-MW-MAF
MARK GLASS, et al.,
Defendants.
_________________________/
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, has filed a notice of change of address,
ECF No. 11, and a first amended complaint, ECF No. 10. As Plaintiff was
previously granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF Nos. 2 and 5,
Plaintiff’s amended complaint has been reviewed to determine if it is
sufficient for service.
First, Plaintiff was previously informed that the Local Rules of this
Court require pro se litigants to file a civil rights complaint on an approved
court form. ECF No. 5 (citing N.D. Fla. Loc. R. 5.7(A)). That Rule states
that the “Court need not - and ordinarily will not - consider a petition,
motion, or complaint that is not filed on the proper form.” 	Id. 	The Clerk of
Case 4:25-cv-00473-MW-MAF Document 12 Filed 01/08/26 Page 1 of 4

Page 2 of 4
Court was directed to provide Plaintiff with a civil rights complaint form and
Plaintiff must directed to submit his amended complaint on that form. ECF
No. 5. Plaintiff’s amended complaint, ECF No. 10, is not on the court form.
Second, Plaintiff’s initial complaint, ECF No. 1, did not provide factual
allegations which were related to the named Defendant. Plaintiff did not
allege that Defendant Glass took any action to harm Plaintiff or violate his
rights. ECF No. 1. Thus, Plaintiff was informed that the complaint failed to
state a claim as to Defendant Glass. ECF No. 5.
Despite that guidance, Plaintiff’s amended complaint still fails to
reference a single action by Defendant Glass. ECF No. 10. Therefore, the
amended complaint fails to state a claim and should be dismissed.
Notably, the vast majority of Plaintiff’s allegations pertain to events
which transpired in Brevard County, Florida. 	Id. at 2-14. Plaintiff proves a
multitude of details about persons allegedly following him, stalking,
intimidating him, and making false reports to the Sheriff’s Department.
Those assertions fail to state a claim and are unconnected to Defendant
Glass.
It appears that at some point, Plaintiff was arrested. 	Id. at 11-13. He
claims that after the charges were dropped, “FDLE refused to automatically
Case No. 4:25cv473-MW-MAF
Case 4:25-cv-00473-MW-MAF Document 12 Filed 01/08/26 Page 2 of 4

Page 3 of 4
expunge the charges . . . .” 	Id. at 13. 	Plaintiff essentially argues that it “is
unconstitutional for FDLE to” require Plaintiff to comply with administrative
rules to have the arrest expunged, his rights restored, and have his
weapon returned to him. 	Id. at 14-15. That is not a viable constitutional
claim as there is no Constitutional right for an expungement.
Moreover, Plaintiff’s claims as to that issue are asserted against
FDLE. As relief, Plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive damages. ECF
No. 10 at 17. 	“[A]n action brought in federal court against a state or one of
its agencies is barred by the Eleventh Amendment.” Irwin v. Miami-Dade
Cnty. Pub. Schs., No. 06-23029-CIV, 2009 WL 465038, at *2 (S.D. Fla.
Feb. 24, 2009), aff’d, 398 F. App’x 503 (11th Cir. 2010) (citing Scott v.
Taylor, 405 F.3d 1251, 1255 (11th Cir. 2005); Pennhurst State Sch. &
Hosp.v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 100, 104 S. Ct. 900, 79 L. Ed. 2d 67
(1984)). FDLE is a state agency and, thus, Plaintiff’s claims - even if
properly asserted against FDLE - are barred by the Eleventh Amendment.
Because it does not appear that providing Plaintiff with further
opportunities to amend would be beneficial, it is recommended that this
case be dismissed for failure to state a claim.
Case No. 4:25cv473-MW-MAF
Case 4:25-cv-00473-MW-MAF Document 12 Filed 01/08/26 Page 3 of 4

Page 4 of 4
In light of the foregoing, it is respectfully RECOMMENDED that
Plaintiff’s amended complaint, ECF No. 10, be DISMISSED for failure to
state a claim upon which relief may be granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2).
IN CHAMBERS at Tallahassee, Florida, on January 8, 2026.
S/ 	Martin A. Fitzpatrick
MARTIN A. FITZPATRICK
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
NOTICE TO THE PARTIES
Within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy of this
Report and Recommendation, a party may serve and file specific written
objections to these proposed findings and recommendations. 	Fed. R.
Civ. P. 72(b)(2). A copy of the objections shall be served upon all other
parties. 	A party may respond to another party’s objections within
fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy thereof. Fed. R. Civ.
P. 72(b)(2). 	Any different deadline that may appear on the electronic
docket is for the Court’s internal use only and does not control. 	If a
party 	fails 	to 	object 	to 	the 	Magistrate 	Judge’s 	findings 	or
recommendations as to any particular claim or issue contained in this
Report and Recommendation, that party waives the right to challenge on
appeal the District Court’s order based on the unobjected-to factual and
legal conclusions. 	See 11th Cir. Rule 3-1; 28 U.S.C. § 636.
Case No. 4:25cv473-MW-MAF
Case 4:25-cv-00473-MW-MAF Document 12 Filed 01/08/26 Page 4 of 4