WASHINGTON
v.
TRANSPORTATION AND SECURITY ADMINISTRATION
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 report and recommendation, dismissing the complaint and denying the motion to proceed in forma pauperis without prejudice.
Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, sued the TSA alleging constitutional violations. The Magistrate Judge recommended denying his motion to proceed in forma…
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 Local Rules Of Civil Procedure cases and more on FLexlaw
leave to file a compliant objection within fifteen days of that order. (Id. at 2.) Plaintiff has not filed a compliant objection, and the time to do so has expired.
After conducting a careful and complete review of the findings and recommendations, a district judge "may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72. With respect to non-dispositive matters, the district judge "must consider timely objections and modify or set aside any part of the order that is clearly erroneous or is contrary to law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a); see Jordan v. Comm'r, Miss. Dep't of Corr., 947 F. 3d 1322, 1327 (11th Cir. 2020). For dispositive matters, the district judge must conduct a de novo review of any portion of the report and 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. 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).
Upon conducting a careful and complete review of the Magistrate Judge's findings, conclusions, and recommendations, and giving de novo review to matters of law, the court adopts the report and recommendation in full.
Accordingly:
1. Plaintiff's complaint (Dkt. 1) is DISMISSED without prejudice.
2. Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Dkt. 2) is DENIED without prejudice.
3. Plaintiff may file an amended complaint and a renewed motion to proceed in forma pauperis on or before January 10, 2025. If Plaintiff renews his motion to proceed in forma pauperis he shall use the Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs (Long Form).¹
ORDERED in Orlando, Florida, on December 20, 2024.
JULIE S. SNEED
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Copies furnished to: Unrepresented Party
[fn 1]: The form is available on the court's website, https://www.flmd.uscourts.gov, by selecting “For Litigants," and “Litigants Without Lawyers,” and then selecting “Forms.”
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)
- Jordan v. Ga. Dep't of Corr., 947 F.3d 1322 (11th Cir. 2020)
- In re Mad Toyz III, LLC (M.D. Fla. 2026)
- United States v. Farias-Gonzalez, 556 F.3d 1181 (11th Cir. 2009)