Jacques v. Sysco Fresh Point et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
WEST PALM BEACH DIVISION
CASE NO. 0:25-cv-60715-EA
Ronel Jaques,
Plaintiff,
v.
Anthony Uslund,
Et al.,
Defendants.
__________________________________/
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMNEDATION
This cause comes before the Court on the report and recommendation that this case be
dismissed without prejudice [7].
In April 2025, the plaintiff initiated this lawsuit and filed a motion to proceed in forma
pauperis. ECF No. 1, 3. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), Magistrate Judge Hunt denied
the motion to proceed in forma pauperis because the complaint failed to state a cause of action.
ECF No. 5. As part of this denial, Judge Hunt ordered the plaintiff to file, within 30 days of the
issuance of the order, an amended complaint and a renewed motion to proceed in forma pauperis.
ECF No. 5.
After the deadline to do this passed without the plaintiff filing an amended complaint or
moving to proceed in forma pauperis—or otherwise moving for an extension of time—Judge Hunt
issued a report and recommendation recommending the case be dismissed for (1) failure to state a
cause of action and (2) failure to comply with the order requiring the plaintiff to file an amended
complaint and renewed motion to proceed in forma pauperis. ECF No. 7. The plaintiff was given
Case 0:25-cv-60715-EA Document 9 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/17/2025 Page 1 of 3

2
14 days to object to this report and recommendation. 	See ECF No. 7; 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)
(“Within fourteen days after being served with a copy, any party may serve and file written
objections to such proposed findings and recommendations as provided by rules of court.”). The
plaintiff, however, did not object to the report and recommendation.
Because 	the 	plaintiff 	did 	not 	timely 	object 	to 	the 	report 	and 	recommendation, 	the
Court declines to review whether the complaint states a valid cause of action. 	See 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1) (“A judge of the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the
report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” (emphasis
added)).
Additionally, the Court agrees that this case should be dismissed because the plaintiff failed to
comply with the order requiring the plaintiff to file an amended complaint and renewed motion to
proceed in forma pauperis or, alternatively, lack of prosecution. 	See Dynes v. Army Air Force
Exchange Serv., 720 F.2d 1495, 1499 (11th Cir. 1983) (“The court’s power to dismiss a cause ‘is
an inherent aspect of its authority to enforce its orders and insure prompt disposition of law suits.’”
(quoting Jones v. Graham, 709 F.2d 1457, 1458 (11th Cir. 1983))); Betty K Agencies, LTD v. M/V
Monada, 432 F.3d 1333, 1337-38 (11th Cir. 2005) (explaining that federal courts have inherent
authority to dismiss for failing to comply with court orders and lack of prosecution).
Therefore, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:
1. 	Judge Hunt’s report and recommendation [7] is ADOPTED.
2. 	This CASE IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
3. 	This CASE IS CLOSED.
4. 	All 	pending 	motions 	are 	DENIED 	AS 	MOOT, 	and 	all 	pending 	deadlines 	are
TERMINATED.
Case 0:25-cv-60715-EA Document 9 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/17/2025 Page 2 of 3

3
ORDERED in Chambers in West Palm Beach, Florida, this 17th day of November 2025.
ED ARTAU
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
CC:
Ronel Jacques
4510 NW 36 Street
Lauderdale Lakes, FL 33319
PRO SE
Case 0:25-cv-60715-EA Document 9 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/17/2025 Page 3 of 3