John v. Bolinder et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO.: 25-CV-23480-GAYLES/D’ANGELO
J. DAVID JOHN,
Plaintiff,
v.
MEGAN MARIE BOLINDER, et al.,
Defendants.
ORDER
THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on the Omnibus Report and Recommendation of
Magistrate Judge Ellen F. D’Angelo (the “Report”). [ECF No. 43]. On August 7, 2025, this Court
referred the case to Judge D’Angelo for a ruling on all pretrial non-dispositive matters and a report
and recommendation on all dispositive matters. [ECF No. 15]. Defendant Megan Bolinder
(“Defendant Bolinder”) subsequently filed a Motion to Designate Plaintiff a Vexatious Litigant [ECF
No. 27] and a Motion for Attorney’s Fees [ECF No. 32]. On February 2, 2026, Judge D’Angelo
issued her Report recommending that the Motion to Designate Plaintiff a Vexatious Litigant be
denied and that the Motion for Attorney’s Fees be granted in part. [ECF No. 43]. Plaintiff timely
objected to the Report. [ECF No. 44].
A 	district 	court 	may 	accept, 	reject, 	or 	modify 	a 	magistrate 	judge’s 	report 	and
recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The objected portions of the report and recommendation
are accorded de novo review if those objections “pinpoint the specific findings that the party
disagrees with.” United States v. Schultz, 565 F.3d 1353, 1360 (11th Cir. 2009); see also Fed. R. Civ.
P. 72(b)(3). Any portions of the report and recommendation to which no specific objection is made
______________________________/
Case 1:25-cv-23480-DPG Document 45 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/19/2026 Page 1 of 2

2
are reviewed only for clear error. Liberty Am. Ins. Grp., Inc. v. WestPoint Underwriters, L.L.C.,
199 F. Supp. 2d 1271, 1276 (M.D. Fla. 2001); accord Macort v. Prem, Inc., 208 F. App’x 781,
784 (11th Cir. 2006). After conducting a de novo review of the record, the Court agrees with Judge
D’Angelo’s well-reasoned analysis and conclusions that the Motion to Designate Plaintiff as a
Vexatious Litigant should be denied and that the Motion for Attorney’s Fees should be granted in
part.
CONCLUSION
Therefore, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
(1) 	The Report and Recommendation, [ECF No. 43], is ADOPTED in full.
(2) 	Defendant Bolinder’s Motion to Designate Plaintiff as a Vexatious Litigant, [ECF
No. 27], is DENIED.
(3) 	Defendant Bolinder’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees, [ECF No. 32], is GRANTED IN
PART. Defendant Bolinder shall be awarded $7,185.20 in reasonable attorney’s fees, pursuant to the
Court’s inherent authority, based on Plaintiff’s bad faith in conducting this litigation.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this 19th day of February, 2026.
________________________________
DARRIN P. GAYLES
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 1:25-cv-23480-DPG Document 45 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/19/2026 Page 2 of 2