Fox v. Bank of America, CT Corporation System

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO. 0:25-CV-60654-SMITH/AUGUSTIN-BIRCH
STEPHEN IRA BORUS FOX,
Plaintiff,
v.
BANK OF AMERICA, CT
CORPORATION SYSTEM,
Defendant.
________________________________________/
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO DENY MOTION
TO REOPEN CASE AND MOTION FOR AFFIDAVIT OF TRUTH
This cause comes before the Court on Plaintiff Stephen Ira Borus Fox’s Motion to Reopen
Case [DE 21] and Motion for Affidavit of Truth [DE 20]. The Honorable Rodney Smith, United
States District Judge, referred the case to the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge for a
ruling on non-dispositive matters and for a report and recommendation on dispositive matters.
DE 22.
Judge Smith dismissed and closed this case due to Plaintiff’s failure to file a Complaint
that demonstrated the existence of subject matter jurisdiction and that stated a claim on which
relief can be granted. See DE 9 at 3 (Order requiring Plaintiff to file an Amended Complaint that
would provide the basis for subject matter jurisdiction and state a claim on which relief can be
granted); DE 15 (Report and Recommendation to dismiss and close case due to Plaintiff’s failure
to file an Amended Complaint); DE 19 (Order adopting Report and Recommendation and
dismissing and closing case). 	Plaintiff still has not filed any Complaint that demonstrates the
Case 0:25-cv-60654-RS Document 23 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/02/2026 Page 1 of 2

2
Court’s subject matter jurisdiction over this case. 	Therefore, it is recommended that Plaintiff’s
Motion to Reopen Case [DE 21] be DENIED.
In his Motion for Affidavit of Truth, Plaintiff asks for an “affidavit[t] of truth stating that
Bank of America gave Stephen Fox the live breathing man not corporation a lawful mortgage
backed by real money” and asks Judge Smith to produce “bonded information to make sure you
are bonded and that you are liable for any violations of my rights that may go on in this matter.”
DE 20 at 1. As Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that the Court has subject matter jurisdiction to
grant any relief in this case, it is recommended that Plaintiff’s Motion for Affidavit of Truth
[DE 20] be DENIED.
Within fourteen days after being served with a copy of this Report and Recommendation,
any party may serve and file written objections to any of the above findings and recommendations.
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); S.D. Fla. Mag. R. 4(b). 	The parties are hereby notified that a failure to
timely object waives the right to challenge on appeal the District Court’s order based on
unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions contained in this Report and Recommendation.
11th Cir. R. 3-1.
The Clerk of Court is directed to mail a copy of this Report and Recommendation to
Plaintiff at the address listed below and to make a notation of such on the docket.
DONE AND SUBMITTED in Chambers at Fort Lauderdale, Florida, this 2nd day of
February, 2026.
___________________________________
PANAYOTTA AUGUSTIN-BIRCH
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Copy furnished to:
Stephen Ira Borus Fox
416 S.W. 9th St.
Apt. South
Hallandale Beach, FL 33009
Case 0:25-cv-60654-RS Document 23 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/02/2026 Page 2 of 2