PETTWAY
v.
AMAZON FULFILLMENT CENTER
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 recommendation to deny the motion to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the complaint with leave to amend.
Plaintiff filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis and a complaint. A Magistrate Judge recommended denying the application and dismissing the…
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
In Forma Pauperis without prejudice and DISMISSES the Complaint with leave to amend.
In the Eleventh Circuit, a district judge may accept, reject, or modify the magistrate judge's report and recommendation after conducting a careful and complete review of the findings and recommendations. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Williams v. Wainwright, 681 F. 2d 732, 732 (11th Cir. 1982). A district judge “shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). This requires that the district judge "give fresh consideration to those issues to which specific objection has been made by a party." Jeffrey S. v. State Bd. of Educ., 896 F. 2d 507, 512 (11th Cir.1990) (quoting H.R. 1609, 94th Cong. § 2 (1976)). Absent specific objections, there is no requirement that a district judge review factual findings de novo, Garvey v. Vaughn, 993 F. 2d 776, 779 n.9 (11th Cir. 1993), and the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings and recommendations. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The district judge reviews legal conclusions de novo, even in the absence of an objection. See Cooper-Houston v. Southern Ry., 37 F. 3d 603, 604 (11th Cir. 1994).
Upon consideration of the Report and Recommendation, in conjunction with an independent examination of the file, the Court is of the opinion the Report and Recommendation should be adopted, confirmed, and approved in all respects. Additionally, the Court finds good cause exists to amend the mandatory initial
2
disclosures deadline in the Case Management and Scheduling Order. (Dkt. 17) Accordingly, it is ORDERED that:
1. The Report and Recommendation, (Dkt. 20), is CONFIRMED and ADOPTED as part of this Order.
2. Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, (Dkt. 2), is DENIED without prejudice.
3. The Complaint, (Dkt. 1), is DISMISSED with leave to amend. Plaintiff may file an amended complaint within thirty (30) days of the date of this Order.
4. If Plaintiff files an amended complaint, Plaintiff is DIRECTED to file a renewed motion to proceed in forma pauperis which addresses whether he hired his attorney on a pro bono or contingency basis.
5. The Second Joint Unopposed Motion to Amend the Scheduling Order, (Dkt. 21), is GRANTED. The deadline for the parties to file their mandatory initial disclosures is hereby extended to May 20, 2024. All other deadlines in the Case Management and Scheduling Order shall remain in full force and effect.
DONE and ORDERED in Tampa, Florida, this 14th day of March 2024.
Thomas P. Barber United States District Judge
3
Copies Furnished to: Counsel of Record Any pro se party
4
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)
- Garvey v. Vaughn, 993 F.2d 776 (11th Cir. 1993)
- Williams v. Louie L. Wainwright, 681 F.2d 732 (11th Cir. 1982)
- Ga. Power Co. v. Int'l Bhd. OF Elec. Workers, 896 F.2d 507 (11th Cir. 1990)