SAUNDERS
v.
NARDELLA
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.
This is a dismissal order in a civil case where the district court adopted a magistrate judge's recommendation to deny the plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the complaint without prejudice, with leave to amend within 21 days.
The district court adopted and approved the magistrate judge's report and recommendation in all respects, denying the motion to proceed in forma pauperis without prejudice and dismissing the complaint without prejudice with leave to amend.
[1] A district court reviews a magistrate judge's report and recommendation de novo in the absence of an objection.
[2] A district court may accept, reject, or modify a magistrate judge's report and recommendation after an independent review.
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“After an independent review, the Court may accept, reject, or modify the magistrate judge's report and recommendation.”
Establishes the standard of review applicable when no objections are filed to a magistrate judge's report and recommendation.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiff Saunders filed a complaint (Dkt. 1) and a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Dkt. 2) in this action against Judge Mary Alice Nardella and …
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 Leave To Amend cases and more on FLexlaw
Before the Court is Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Dkt. 2) and the complaint (Dkt. 1). The United States Magistrate Judge issued a report recommending the motion be denied without prejudice and the complaint be dismissed with leave to amend. Dkt. 8. The time for filing objections has passed.
The Court reviews the legal conclusions de novo in the absence of an objection. See LeCroy v. McNeil, 397 F. App'x 554, 556 (11th Cir. 2010) (citation omitted); Cooper-Houston v. S. Ry. Co., 37 F. 3d 603, 604 (11th Cir. 1994). After an independent review, the Court may accept, reject, or modify the magistrate judge's report and recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); Macort v. Prem., Inc., 208 F. App'x 781, 783–84 (11th Cir. 2006) (citing published opinion).
For the reasons explained in the thorough and well-reasoned Report and Recommendation, and in conjunction with an independent examination of the file, the Court rules as follows:
1. The Report and Recommendation (Dkt. 8) is adopted, confirmed, and approved in all respects and made a part of this order.
2. Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Dkt.2) is denied without prejudice.
3. Plaintiff's complaint (Dkt. 1) is dismissed without prejudice and with leave to amend. If Ms. Saunders wishes to proceed, she must file an amended complaint in compliance with the Report and Recommendation within twenty-one (21) days of the date of this Order. Plaintiff must also file a motion to proceed in forma pauperis, or pay the filing fee, when any amended complaint is filed.
4. Should Plaintiff fail or choose not to timely file an amended complaint, this case will be dismissed with prejudice and closed without further notice.
DONE AND ORDERED at Tampa, Florida, on August 21, 2025.
WILLIAM F. JUNG
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
COPIES FURNISHED TO: Plaintiff, pro se