JOSEPH
v.
SANTANDER CONSUMER USA INC.
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 adopts the magistrate judge's recommendation to dismiss the amended complaint without prejudice and deny the motion to proceed in forma pauperis without prejudice, granting a final opportunity to replead.
Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed an amended complaint and a renewed motion to proceed in forma pauperis. The magistrate judge recommended dismissal…
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 Magistrate Judge Recommendations cases and more on FLexlaw
In September 2024, Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed an amended complaint (Dkt. 16) and a renewed motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Dkt. 17). In January 2025, the magistrate judge assigned to this case issued a recommendation advising that the amended complaint should be dismissed without prejudice, the renewed motion should be denied without prejudice, and Plaintiff should have “a final opportunity to replead." (Dkt. 25 at 3–4, 12.) No party has filed objections to the recommendation, and the time to do so has passed. Upon consideration, the court adopts the recommendation in full.
After conducting a careful and complete review of the findings and recommendations made by a magistrate judge, a district judge "may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); accord Fed. R. Civ. P. 72. A party must serve and file written objections to a magistrate judge's recommendation within fourteen days of being served with a copy of it, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), and the failure to object in a timely fashion “waives the right to challenge on appeal the district court's order based on unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions," 11th Cir. R. 3-1. With respect to dispositive matters, the district judge must conduct a de novo review of any portion of the recommendation to which a timely objection is made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); United States v. Farias-Gonzalez, 556 F. 3d 1181, 1184 n.1 (11th Cir. 2009) (“A district court makes a de novo determination of those portions of a magistrate's report to which objections are filed."). Even in the absence of a specific objection, the district judge reviews any legal conclusions de novo. 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).
Here, upon conducting a careful and complete review of the magistrate judge's recommendation and giving de novo review to matters of law, the court agrees with the recommendation in full.
Accordingly:
1. The magistrate judge's recommendation (Dkt. 25) is ADOPTED. 2. Plaintiff's amended complaint (Dkt. 16) is DISMISSED without prejudice. 3. Plaintiff's renewed motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Dkt. 17) is DENIED without prejudice. 4. On or before April 19, 2025, Plaintiff shall file a second amended complaint and a renewed motion to proceed in forma pauperis, if he can do so in good faith.
ORDERED in Orlando, Florida, on March 28, 2025.
JULIE S. SNEED
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Copies furnished to: Unrepresented Parties Counsel of Record
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)
- In re Mad Toyz III, LLC (M.D. Fla. 2026)
- United States v. Farias-Gonzalez, 556 F.3d 1181 (11th Cir. 2009)