MICHAEL C. ARLINE, AND ALGERINE THOMAS
v.
ESCOBAR ASSOCIATION, AND DEE ANN ATHAN
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court adopted the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, denying the motion to proceed in forma pauperis and dismissing the complaint without prejudice because it failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.
[1] A complaint that fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted is not eligible for in forma pauperis status under 28 U.S.C. …
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiffs Michael C. Arline and Algerine Thomas filed a complaint and a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. The Magistrate Judge recommended denying…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Pro Se Pleading Construction cases and more on FLexlaw
The United States Magistrate Judge recommends denying Arline and Thomas's motion to proceed in forma pauperis and dismissing the complaint without prejudice. R&R (Doc. 15). The deadline to object to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation has passed without any party lodging an objection. I adopt the Report and Recommendation.
After conducting a careful and complete review of the findings and recommendations, a district judge may accept, reject, or modify a magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). If a party files a timely and specific objection to a finding of fact by a magistrate judge, the district court must conduct a de novo review with respect to that factual issue. Stokes v. Singletary, 952 F. 2d 1567, 1576 (11th Cir. 1992). The district court reviews legal conclusions de novo, even in the absence of an objection. See Cooper-Houston v. S. Ry. Co., 37 F. 3d 603, 604 (11th Cir. 1994); Ashworth v. Glades Cnty. Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs, 379 F. Supp. 3d 1244, 1246 (M.D. Fla. 2019).
In the absence of any objection and after reviewing the factual allegations and legal conclusions, I adopt the Report and Recommendation. As the Magistrate Judge noted, plaintiffs may only proceed in forma pauperis if their complaint states a claim upon which relief can be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). While courts must liberally construe pro se pleadings, the pleadings still must comply with the pleading standard. I agree with the Magistrate Judge's conclusion that plaintiffs' complaint fails to state a claim for which relief can be granted. And, after multiple warnings, plaintiffs failed to file a timely amended complaint as permitted by the Magistrate Judge. Because of the above, I dismiss the complaint without prejudice and deny all remaining motions as moot.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED:
1. The Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (Doc. 15) is ADOPTED and made a part of this Order for all purposes.
2. The Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 8) is DENIED.
3. This case is DISMISSED without prejudice.
4. The clerk is directed to ENTER JUDGMENT, which shall read: “This case is dismissed with prejudice."
5. The clerk is further directed to TERMINATE any pending
motions and deadlines, and to CLOSE this case.
ORDERED in Tampa, Florida, on November 14, 2025.
Kathryn Kimball Mizelle United States District Judge
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Marina Cooper-Houston v. S. Ry. Co., 37 F.3d 603 (11th Cir. 1994)
- Durham Eldon Stokes v. Singletary, 952 F.2d 1567 (11th Cir. 1992)
- In re Mad Toyz III, LLC (M.D. Fla. 2026)