ORDER

PHILIP R. LAMMENS, Magistrate Judge.

This case is before the Court for consideration of Defendant Regions Bank's Motion for Final Dismissal of Amended Complaint with Prejudice and for Sanctions (Doc. 33), filed July 3, 2013. Plaintiffs have failed to respond to Defendant's motion.

Plaintiffs initiated this action by filing an "Amended Verified Complaint to Quiet Title" in state court on December 21, 2012. On January 24, 2013, Defendant removed the case to this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. (Doc. 1).

The background facts and procedural history of this case have been thoroughly discussed by the Court in its Order entered May 30, 2013. (Doc. 31). In brief, Plaintiffs allegations include that Defendant's recorded mortgage on their property created a cloud on their title, and that Defendant does not have any valid enforceable interest in the mortgage or the property. The Court dismissed Plaintiff's Amended Complaint (Doc. 2) without prejudice, and afforded Plaintiffs a single opportunity to file an amended complaint, "if they can do so without violating Fed. R. Civ. P. 11." (Doc. 31 at 7). The Court stated, "[t]he amended complaint shall not serve as an opportunity to add new claims. Rather, this represents a chance for Plaintiffs to remedy the pleading deficiencies identified herein." (Doc. 31 at 7). The Court also denied without prejudice Defendant's Motion for Sanctions, but stated that the Court may consider sanctions against Plaintiffs and/or Plaintiffs' counsel if Plaintiffs file an amended complaint that fails to comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(c).

On June 16, 2013, through counsel Kelley Bosecker, Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint. (Doc. 32). Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint consists of ninety-seven (97) pages of allegations that are nearly indistinguishable from those that were previously dismissed by the Court's Order of May 30, 2013 (Doc. 31). As Defendants accurately observe, the Amended Complaint includes numerous bald allegations, including allegations that Plaintiffs were fraudulently induced when they received their mortgage loan, that they "question" the authenticity of signatures on "all documents and pleadings," and that Regions failed to verify the debt. (Doc. 32 at 2-6). Defendant argues that these allegations fall short of Rule 11 and are nearly identical to allegations in other cases filed by Ms. Bosecker, and are due to be dismissed.

The Court agrees. Plaintiffs have been given ample opportunity to remedy the pleading deficiencies identified in the Court's prior Order (Doc. 31). Rather than doing so, Plaintiffs have violated the Court's directives, and filed an Amended Complaint containing allegations that are conclusory, incomprehensible, frivolous, and unsupported by law. Plaintiffs have failed to respond to Defendant's Motion for Final Dismissal of Amended Complaint with Prejudice and for Sanctions (Doc. 33). Accordingly, Plaintiffs have failed to make any cognizable arguments which would prevent dismissal.

For reasons discussed fully in the Court's Order of May 30, 2012 (Doc. 31), Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint (Doc. 32) is due to be dismissed, now with prejudice. Defendants' Motion for sanctions (Doc. 33) shall be denied without prejudice. If Defendant choses to refile its request for sanctions, Defendant must present sufficientt legal argument, a measure of attorney's fees, proposed amounts for possible sanctions, and provide documeentary support for the amount sought.

Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, it is ORDERED that:

DONE and ORDERED.