MCCARTHY
v.
PODS ENTERPRISES, LLC
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 for the Middle District of Florida adopted a magistrate judge's report and recommendation, dismissing plaintiff McCarthy's amended complaint against PODS Enterprises, LLC without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and denying the motion to proceed in forma pauperis.
The district court adopted the magistrate judge's report and recommendation in full, dismissing the amended complaint without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and denying the motion to proceed in forma pauperis.
“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 for magistrate judge reports when no objections are filed
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiff McCarthy filed a complaint against defendant PODS Enterprises, LLC. A magistrate judge conducted proceedings and issued a report and recomme…
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 Motion To Proceed In Forma Pauperis cases and more on FLexlaw
This matter is before the Court on consideration of the report and recommendation of Amanda A. Sansone, United States Magistrate Judge, entered on September 16, 2024. (Doc. 8). Judge Sansone recommends that Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 5) be denied, and Plaintiff's amended complaint (Doc. 4) be dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. No objection to the report and recommendation 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 Sansone's report and recommendation, the Court adopts the report and recommendation.
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED:
(1) Judge Sansone's report and recommendation (Doc. 8) is AFFIRMED and ADOPTED and INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE into this Order for all purposes, including appellate review.
(2) Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 5) is hereby DENIED.
(3) The amended complaint (Doc. 4) is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
(4) The Clerk is directed to terminate any pending motions and deadlines, and thereafter close this case.
DONE and ORDERED in Chambers, in Tampa, Florida, this 3rd day of October, 2024.
Jup. Bul
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)