Sharp v. Wenski

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO. 25-23021-CIV-DAMIAN/LETT
DARYL SHARP,
Plaintiff,
v.
THOMAS WENSKI,
Defendant.
______________________________/
ORDER AFFIRMING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
THIS CAUSE is before the Court on Magistrate Judge Enjolique A. Lett’s Report
and Recommendation of Dismissal [ECF No. 9], entered on December 1, 2025.
THE COURT has considered the Report, the pertinent portions of the record, and
relevant authorities and is otherwise fully advised.
On July 7, 2025, Plaintiff, Daryl Sharp (“Plaintiff”), appearing pro se, filed a
Complaint 	against 	Defendant, 	Thomas 	Wenski, 	Archbishop 	of Miami, 	[ECF 	No. 	1
(“Complaint”)], and a Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis [ECF No. 3]. The
case was assigned to Magistrate Judge Lett pursuant to Administrative Order 2025-11. See
ECF No. 2.
On July 22, 2025, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Case Reassignment to a United States
District Judge [ECF No. 5], and the following day, the Clerk of Court reassigned the case to
United States District Judge Jose E. Martinez for all further proceedings. [ECF No. 6]. The
case 	was 	subsequently 	reassigned 	to 	the 	undersigned 	for 	all 	further 	proceedings 	on
December 17, 2025. [ECF No. 10].
Case 1:25-cv-23021-MD Document 11 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/12/2026 Page 1 of 5

2
On December 1, 2025, Magistrate Judge Lett issued the Report now before this
Court recommending that the Complaint be dismissed with prejudice. In the Report,
Magistrate Judge Lett considered Plaintiff’s prior litigation history in Case No. 25-cv-20379-
RKA, Sharp v. Wenski, filed in this District on January 24, 2025. In that action, United
States District Judge Roy K. Altman screened Plaintiff’s Complaint under 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e) and determined that it was due to be dismissed as a frivolous shotgun pleading. See
Report at 2 (citing Screening Order, No. 25-cv-20379-RKA, ECF No. 5). As noted in the
Report, after Plaintiff failed to file an amended complaint in that original action, the case
was dismissed without prejudice for failure to comply with court orders. Id. (citing Order
Dismissing Case, No. 25-cv-20319-RKA, ECF No. 9). Plaintiff then appealed the dismissal
order to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, which eventually dismissed the appeal on
June 25, 2025, for want of prosecution. Id. at 2–3 (citing Order of Dismissal from USCA,
25-cv-20379-RKA, ECF No. 15).
Thereafter, on July 7, 2025, Plaintiff filed a near-identical Complaint in the instant
action. [ECF No. 1]. As further noted in the Magistrate Judge’s Report, in both cases,
Plaintiff seeks monetary damages in the amount of $500 trillion for alleged misuse and theft
of government funds by “manipulating” or “altering the Bible” and “mass shootings against
children and law enforcement personnel” or “mass shootings to intimidate the case for
moving forward.” Report at 3.
Magistrate Judge Lett determined that Plaintiff’s re-filing of a Complaint that was
previously dismissed is impermissible and warrants dismissal. Magistrate Judge Lett also
concluded that the Complaint in this action suffers from the same defects as the Complaint
in the original action that was dismissed without prejudice, and, therefore, any further leave
Case 1:25-cv-23021-MD Document 11 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/12/2026 Page 2 of 5

3
to amend would be futile. The Magistrate Judge therefore recommends that the Complaint
be dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a claim and amend in accordance with Judge
Altman’s Order in the original action.
Any party may object to a Magistrate Judge’s report and recommendation within
fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy thereof. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); see
also Local Rule 4(b) of the Magistrate Judge Rules of S.D. Fla. L.R.1 Objections to the
Report were, therefore, due by December 15, 2025. As of the date of this Order, no
objections to Magistrate Judge Lett’s Report have been filed, and the time to do so has
passed.
When a magistrate judge’s “disposition” has properly been objected to, district courts
must review the disposition de novo. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). When no party has timely
objected, however, “the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face
of the record in order to accept the recommendation.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory
committee’s notes (citation omitted). Although Rule 72 itself is silent on the standard of
review, the Supreme Court has acknowledged Congress’s intent was to only require a de
novo review where objections have been properly filed, not when neither party objects. See
Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985) (“It does not appear that Congress intended to
require district court review of a magistrate [judge]’s factual or legal conclusions, under a de
novo or any other standard, when neither party objects to those findings.”). In any event, the
“[f]ailure to object to the magistrate [judge]’s factual findings after notice precludes a later
1 In the original action before Judge Altman, Plaintiff was ordered to “comply with all
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rules for the Southern District of Florida” and
was advised that the Local Rules “can be obtained from the Clerk of the Court.” Order
Providing Instructions to Pro Se Litigants, No. 25-cv-20379-RKA, ECF No. 4.
Case 1:25-cv-23021-MD Document 11 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/12/2026 Page 3 of 5

4
attack on these findings.” Lewis v. Smith, 855 F.2d 736, 738 (11th Cir. 1988) (citing Nettles v.
Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404, 410 (5th Cir. 1982)).
The undersigned has reviewed the Report, the record, and the applicable law to
assure herself that no clear error appears on the face of the record. In light of that review, the
undersigned agrees with Judge Lett’s well-reasoned findings and thorough analyses and
conclusions and agrees with Judge Lett’s conclusions that the Complaint should be
dismissed for failure to state a claim. The undersigned also agrees that since leave to amend
was previously granted in the original action, and based on the nature of Plaintiff’s
allegations, any further leave to amend would be futile. Therefore, dismissal with prejudice
is warranted.
Accordingly, for the reasons set forth, it is hereby
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
1. 	The 	Report 	and 	Recommendation 	[ECF 	No. 	9] 	is 	AFFIRMED 	AND
ADOPTED in its entirety and incorporated into this Order by reference.
2. 	The Complaint [ECF No. 1] is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
3. 	The Clerk of the Court is directed to CLOSE this case.
4. 	Any pending motions, including the Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma
Pauperis [ECF No. 3], are DENIED AS MOOT.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers in the Southern District of Florida, this 12th
day of January, 2026.
__________________________________
MELISSA DAMIAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 1:25-cv-23021-MD Document 11 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/12/2026 Page 4 of 5

5
cc: 	Daryl Sharp, Pro se
11125 Park Blvd.
Seminole, FL 33772
Case 1:25-cv-23021-MD Document 11 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/12/2026 Page 5 of 5