GREEN
v.
WILKINSON
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 plaintiff's motion to appeal in forma pauperis because his claims are barred by the statute of limitations and his tolling argument was forfeited.
The plaintiff, James Green, sought to appeal in forma pauperis. The Magistrate Judge recommended denial of this motion. The plaintiff did not object t…
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 Good Faith Appeal cases and more on FLexlaw
In an April 23, 2025 report (Doc. 28), the United States Magistrate Judge recommends denial of pro se plaintiff James Green's amended motion to appeal in forma pauperis. The deadline to object has passed without an objection.
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 of that factual issue. Stokes v. Singletary, 952 F. 2d 1567, 1576 (11th Cir. 1992). The district court reviews legal conclusions de novo, even absent 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).
Absent an objection and after reviewing the factual allegations and legal conclusions, the Court adopts the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation. Green's claims are all barred by Florida's four-year statute of limitations. See § 95.11(3)(o), Fla. Stat.; see also Chappell v. Rich, 340 F. 3d 1279, 1283 (11th Cir. 2003) (per curiam). And his tolling argument is forfeited because he did not raise it in this court. See Tannenbaum v. United States, 148 F. 3d 1262, 1265 (11th Cir. 1998) (per curiam). Green's appeal therefore lacks arguable merit and is not in good faith, and his motion to appeal in forma pauperis must be denied.
Accordingly, the following is ORDERED:
1. The Magistrate Judge's Report & Recommendation (Doc. 28) is ADOPTED and made a part of this order for all purposes.
2. Plaintiff James Green's Amended Motion to Appeal in Forma Pauperis (Doc. 24) is DENIED.
3. The Court CERTIFIES that Green's appeal lacks arguable merit and is not taken in good faith.
2
4. The clerk is DIRECTED to notify the clerk of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit of this order in accordance with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 24(a)(4).
5. The clerk is FURTHER DIRECTED to mail the plaintiff a copy of this order.
ORDERED in Tampa, Florida, on May 9, 2025.
Kathryn Kimball Mizelle United States District Judge
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)
- Tannenbaum v. United States, 148 F.3d 1262 (11th Cir. 1998)
- Durham Eldon Stokes v. Singletary, 952 F.2d 1567 (11th Cir. 1992)
- In re Mad Toyz III, LLC (M.D. Fla. 2026)
- Shelton Chappell v. J.W. Rich, 340 F.3d 1279 (11th Cir. 2003)