FANTEL
v.
HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY COURTHOUSE
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 District Court adopted the magistrate judge's reports and recommendations, dismissing plaintiff's complaint without prejudice and denying the motion to proceed in forma pauperis without prejudice, both with leave to refile.
The district court adopted the magistrate judge's reports and recommendations in full, dismissing the complaint without prejudice with leave to amend and denying the motion to proceed in forma pauperis without prejudice with leave to file a new motion.
[1] When no party objects to a magistrate judge's report and recommendation, the district court reviews the report for clear error rather than de novo.
[2] A complaint may be dismissed without prejudice pending the filing of an amended complaint and amended motion to proceed in forma pauperis within a specified time period.
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“A district court must 'make a de novo determination of those portions of the [report and recommendation] to which an objection is made.' 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). When no objection is filed, a court reviews the report and recommendation for clear error.”
Establishes the standard of review when no objections are filed to a magistrate judge's recommendations
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiff filed a complaint against Hillsborough County Courthouse and other defendants. The magistrate judge issued reports and recommendations on De…
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 In Forma Pauperis Motion cases and more on FLexlaw
This matter is before the Court on consideration of the reports and recommendations of Thomas G. Wilson, United States Magistrate Judge, entered on December 16, 2024, and on December 30, 2024 (Docs. 3; 4). Judge Wilson recommends that Plaintiffs complaint (Doc. 1) be dismissed without prejudice, and that his motion to proceed without costs be denied without prejudice. No objections to the reports and recommendations has been filed, and the time to object has expired.
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); Camby v. Davis, 718 F. 2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983); Williams v. Wainwright, 681 F. 2d 732 (11th Cir. 1982). A district court must "make a de novo determination of those portions of the [report and recommendation] to which an objection is made." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). When no objection is filed, a court reviews the report and recommendation for clear error. Macort v. Prem, Inc., 208 F. App'x 781, 784 (11th Cir. 2006); Nettles v. Wainwright, 677 F. 2d 404, 409 (5th Cir. 1982).
Upon due consideration of the record, including Judge Wilson's reports and recommendations, the Court adopts the reports and recommendations in full. Consequently, the complaint is dismissed without prejudice, with leave to amend. The motion to proceed in forma pauperis is denied without prejudice, with leave to file a new motion along with the amended complaint.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED:
(1) Judge Wilson's reports and recommendations (Docs. 3; 4) are AFFIRMED and ADOPTED and INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE into this Order for all purposes, including appellate review.
(2) The complaint (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, with leave to amend.
(3) Plaintiff is directed to file an amended complaint and motion to proceed without costs on or before February 17, 2025. Failure to file an amended complaint as directed will result in this Order becoming a final judgment. See Auto. Alignment & Body Serv., Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 953 F. 3d 707, 719-20 (11th Cir. 2020).
2025. DONE and ORDERED in Chambers, in Tampa, Florida, this 17th day of January,
TOM BARBER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Ennis Nettles v. Louie L. Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404 (5th Cir. 1982)
- Williams v. Louie L. Wainwright, 681 F.2d 732 (11th Cir. 1982)
- Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198 (4th Cir. 1983)