BARNES
v.
DEFELICE
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 with leave to amend.
Plaintiff filed a complaint and a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. The magistrate judge recommended denying the motion and dismissing the complain…
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 Dismissal With 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 thorough and well-reasoned report recommending the motion be denied and the complaint be dismissed with leave to amend. Dkt. 3. 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).
The Magistrate Judge correctly found that the complaint (Dkt. 1) fails to state claims violative of federal law concerning the events of his arrest and related search of his vehicle on December 26, 2020. Dkt. 3. Plaintiff alleges neither a substantive nor procedural due process claim. Dkt. 3 at 5–7. Additionally, the complaint is deficient because it does not comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and basic pleading requirements of every plaintiff.
For the reasons explained in the Report and Recommendation, and in conjunction with an independent examination of the file, the Court rules as follows:
1. The Report and Recommendation (Dkt. 3) 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.
3. Plaintiff's complaint (Dkt. 1) is dismissed without prejudice and with leave to amend. If Mr. Barnes wishes to proceed, he must file an amended complaint paying careful attention to the requirements set forth in the Report and Recommendation within thirty (30) 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 without prejudice and closed without further notice.
DONE AND ORDERED at Tampa, Florida, on June 2, 2025.
WILLIAM F. JUNG
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
COPIES FURNISHED TO: Plaintiff, pro se