DUFFY
v.
MAGILLIGAN
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.
A district court adopted a magistrate judge's report recommending dismissal of a pro se complaint for failure to allege sufficient facts to state a legal claim and lack of federal subject matter jurisdiction. The court granted the plaintiff 30 days to file an amended complaint, and denied the motion to proceed in forma pauperis without prejudice.
The court adopted the magistrate judge's recommendation to dismiss the complaint without prejudice for failure to allege sufficient facts and lack of federal subject matter jurisdiction. The plaintiff was given 30 days to file an amended complaint that complies with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and establishes a basis for federal jurisdiction.
“The magistrate judge found that the complaint (Dkt. 1) and the 'Notice to the Court' (Dkt. 7) neither allege sufficient facts to state a legal claim nor demonstrate a basis for federal subject matter jurisdiction.”
Establishes the basis for the court's order dismissing the complaint
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiff filed a civil action against Tom Magilligan, Edward Haab, USPS, Mike Daignault, and Robert Carlton. Plaintiff also filed a motion to proceed…
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 Proceed In Forma Pauperis cases and more on FLexlaw
This cause comes before the Court on Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis (Dkt. 2) and the complaint (Dkt. 1). The United States Magistrate Judge issued a report recommending that the motion be denied without prejudice and that the complaint be dismissed with leave to file an amended complaint. Dkt.
8. The time for filing objections has passed.
The Court reviews the legal conclusions de novo in the absence of an objection. See LeCroy v. McNeil, 397 F. App'x 554, 556 (11th Cir. 2010) (citation omitted); Cooper-Houston v. S. Ry. Co., 37 F. 3d 603, 604 (11th Cir. 1994). The magistrate judge found that the complaint (Dkt. 1) and the “Notice to the Court" (Dkt. 7) neither allege sufficient facts to state a legal claim nor demonstrate a basis for federal subject matter jurisdiction. After conducting an independent
examination of the file, the Court agrees with the well-reasoned Report and Recommendation and rules as follows:
1. The Report and Recommendation (Dkt. 8) is adopted, confirmed, and approved in all respects (with one exception-Plaintiff will be allowed thirty (30) days to comply), and made a part of this order.
2. Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Dkt. 2) is denied without prejudice.
3. Plaintiff's complaint (Dkt. 1) is dismissed without prejudice. If Plaintiff wishes to proceed, he must file an amended complaint and motion to proceed in forma pauperis in accordance with the Report and Recommendation within thirty (30) days. The amended complaint must comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and set forth the basis for federal jurisdiction supported by factual allegations. If an amended complaint is not timely filed, this case will be dismissed and closed without further notice.
DONE AND ORDERED at Tampa, Florida, on April 3, 2024.
WILLIAM F. JUNG
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
COPIES FURNISHED TO: Plaintiff, pro se
2