DUVAL
v.
EXPERIAN
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 recommendation to deny the motion to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the complaint without prejudice.
Plaintiff filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis and a complaint. A Magistrate Judge recommended denying the motion, dismissing the complaint wit…
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 Motion To Proceed In Forma Pauperis cases and more on FLexlaw
THIS CAUSE comes before the Court for consideration of Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, (Dkt. 2). On May 30, 2025, United States Magistrate Judge Lindsay S. Griffin issued a Report and Recommendation, recommending: (i) denial of Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, (Dkt. 2); (ii) dismissal without prejudice of Plaintiff's Complaint, (Dkt. 1); and (iii) termination of any pending motions and closing of the case. (Dkt. 4) The time to file written objections to the Report and Recommendation's factual findings and legal conclusions has passed, and Plaintiff has not filed any written objections.
After conducting a careful and complete review of the findings and recommendations, a district judge may accept, reject, or modify the Magistrate Judge's report and recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Williams v. Wainwright, 681 F. 2d 732, 732 (11th Cir. 1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1112 (1983). A district judge "shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). This requires that the district judge "give fresh consideration to those issues to which specific objection has been made by a party.” Jeffrey S. v. State Bd. of Educ., 896 F. 2d 507, 512 (11th Cir.1990) (quoting H.R. 1609, 94th Cong. § 2 (1976)). In the absence of specific objections, there is no requirement that a district judge review factual findings de novo, Garvey v. Vaughn, 993 F. 2d 776, 779 n.9 (11th Cir. 1993), and the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings and recommendations. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The district judge reviews legal conclusions de novo, even in the absence of an objection. See Cooper-Houston v. Southern Ry., 37 F. 3d 603, 604 (11th Cir. 1994).
Upon consideration of the Report and Recommendation, in conjunction with an independent examination of the file, the Court is of the opinion that the Report and Recommendation should be adopted, confirmed, and approved in all respects. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that:
1. The Report and Recommendation, (Dkt. 4), is CONFIRMED and ADOPTED as part of this Order. 2. Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, (Dkt. 2), is DENIED. 3. Plaintiff's Complaint, (Dkt. 1), is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
4. The Clerk is DIRECTED to TERMINATE any pending motions and CLOSE this case.
DONE and ORDERED in Tampa, Florida, this 2nd day of July 2025.
MARY S. SCRIVEN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Copies furnished to: Counsel of Record Any Unrepresented Person
3
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)
- Garvey v. Vaughn, 993 F.2d 776 (11th Cir. 1993)
- Coleman v. City of Winston-Salem, 459 U.S. 1112 (U.S. 1983)