Seole v. Ace Hardware

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO. 0:25-cv-62599-LEIBOWITZ/STRAUSS
JOSE RICARDO SEOLE,
Plaintiff,
v.
ACE HARDWARE,
Defendant.
_________________________/
OMNIBUS ORDER ADOPTING IN PART
MAGISTRATE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
AND RULING ON PENDING MOTIONS
THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon a Report and Recommendation by United States
Magistrate Judge Jared M. Strauss [ECF No. 6] (the “R&R”) filed on January 16, 2026, recommending
after screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) that pro se Plaintiff’s Complaint [ECF No. 1] be dismissed
without prejudice and that any pending motions be denied as moot. [Id. at 4]. On January 21, 2026,
Plaintiff filed a motion [ECF No. 10], which the court construes as a timely objection to the R&R’s
recommendation that the Court dismiss this action. 	Construed liberally, Plaintiff says he did not
amend the complaint as directed by Judge Strauss by the court-ordered deadline because he did not
receive a copy of Judge Strauss’s Order [ECF No. 5] until after the deadline had passed. [ECF No.
10 at 1]. Plaintiff belatedly located the Order in the “USPS facility junk mail bucket” only two days
before the R&R was entered. [Id.]. As a result, Plaintiff asks for an extension of time to amend his
pleading to cure the deficiencies identified by Judge Strauss, which are numerous. [ECF No. 10 at 1;
See ECF No. 5]. Plaintiff further asks the Court to refer his case to the Court’s Volunteer Attorney
Program (“VAP”). [ECF No. 9]. Upon due consideration of both pending motions and the R&R, it
is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
1. 	The Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 6] is ADOPTED IN PART.
2. 	The Complaint [ECF No. 1] is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
Case 0:25-cv-62599-DSL Document 11 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/22/2026 Page 1 of 2

2
3. 	Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension [ECF No. 10] is GRANTED. 	Plaintiff must file an
Amended Complaint that cures the pleading deficiencies identified by Judge Strauss at
ECF No. 5 no later than March 20, 2026, failing which this case will be DISMISSED
without further notice.
4. 	Plaintiff’s Motion for referral to the VAP [ECF No. 9] is DENIED WITHOUT
PRJUDICE. After Plaintiff timely files an Amended Complaint, Plaintiff may renew the
Motion.
DONE AND ORDERED in the Southern District of Florida on January 21, 2026.
cc: 	counsel of record
Jose Ricardo Seole, pro se
P.O. Box 24013
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33307
Case 0:25-cv-62599-DSL Document 11 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/22/2026 Page 2 of 2