ORDER ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

WILLIAM TERRELL HODGES, District Judge.

This matter is before the Court on the Order and Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, ECF No. 53. In that document, the Magistrate Judge instructed the plaintiff that (1) his medical malpractice claim is due to be dismissed because he failed to comply with Florida's pre-suit requirements; (2) his claim for declaratory relief is due to be dismissed as moot because he is no longer confined at the jail; and (3) his claims against Sasser and Smith are due to be dismissed because he alleged no facts specific to them in the Second Amended Complaint.

The Order and Report and Recommendation also granted plaintiff's motion to file a third amended complaint but advised him that he could not include the medical malpractice claim or the declaratory relief claim. It also recommended that plaintiff be allowed to add specific facts concerning Sasser and Smith, rather than dismissing the claims against them. The parties have been furnished a copy of the Report and Recommendation and have been afforded an opportunity to file objections pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 636(b)(1). No objections have been filed. Instead, plaintiff filed his Third Amended Complaint, ECF No. 57.

The Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge's conclusions that the medical malpractice and declaratory judgment claims were due to be dismissed and that the claims against Sasser and Smith in the Second Amended Complaint were due to be dismissed for lack of specific factual allegations involving them. Thus, the Court agrees that it was proper to direct plaintiff not to include the medical malpractice and declaratory judgment claims in the Third Amended Complaint and to require more specific allegations against Sasser and Smith. Thus, the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is adopted with regard to those recommendations.

However, because the Third Amended Complaint is now the operative complaint in this case, the motions to dismiss at ECF No. 29, 31 and 47 are technically moot. Therefore, although the Court agrees with the reasoning behind the Magistrate Judge's recommendation that these motions be granted in part and denied in part, that part of the Report and Recommendation is rejected and the motions at ECF No. 29, 31 and 47 are denied as moot, without prejudice to defendants filing motions to dismiss the Third Amended Complaint. Accordingly, it is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:

DONE AND ORDERED.