DAVIS
v.
PASCO COUNTY STATE ATTORNEY OFFICE
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 held that the plaintiff's objection, which presented new facts not alleged in the sixth amended complaint, was overruled and the Report and Recommendation was adopted.
Plaintiff sought to proceed in forma pauperis and filed a sixth amended complaint alleging claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Magistrate Judge recomme…
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
The United States Magistrate Judge recommends denying the plaintiff's Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis and dismissing this action with prejudice because the plaintiff's sixth amended complaint fails to state a viable, non-frivolous claim. Rep. and Rec. (Doc. 25) R&R. The plaintiff filed an objection. Obj. (Doc. 28). I overrule the objection and 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).
The Report and Recommendation explained that the sixth amended complaint did not state sufficient facts to plead viable claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the defendants. R&R at 6–9. As to Defendant Chris Nocco, sued in his official capacity as Sheriff of Pasco County, the Magistrate Judge concluded that the plaintiff could not bring a § 1983 action against him because there were no facts alleged that create the necessary causal connection to hold Defendant Nocco liable for the actions of his subordinates. Id. at 6–7. And the plaintiff cannot sue the Pasco County Sheriff's Office under § 1983 because under Florida Law, Sheriff's offices are not separate legal entities that can be sued. Id. at 7–8.
In response, the plaintiff does not object to the Magistrate Judge's legal reasoning, but instead submits new facts suggesting that Defendant Nocco helped implement a program that led to constitutional violations, and therefore he can be
Upon review of the Report and Recommendation and the plaintiff's objections, I adopt the Report and Recommendation.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED:
1. The Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (Doc. 25) is ADOPTED and made a part of this Order for all purposes.
2. The Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 19) is DENIED.
3. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment, which shall read “This case is dismissed with prejudice," and to CLOSE this case.
3
ORDERED in Tampa, Florida, on June 10, 2025.
Kathryn Kimball Mizelle United States District Judge
4