NORMAN
v.
H. LEE MOFFITT CANCER CENTER AND RESEARCH INSTITUTE, INC.
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 and denied the plaintiff's motion to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis.
The plaintiff filed a motion to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis. The magistrate judge recommended denying the motion. The time for objections pass…
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 cases and more on FLexlaw
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis (Dkt. 92). The magistrate judge issued a thorough and well-reasoned report recommending in forma pauperis status to proceed on appeal be denied (Dkt. 97). 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). For the reasons explained in the Report and Recommendation, and in conjunction with an independent examination of the file, the Court rules as follows: 1. The Report and Recommendation (Dkt. 97) is adopted, confirmed, and approved in all respects and is hereby made a part of this Order. 2. Plaintiff’s motion to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis (Dkt. 92) is denied.
3. The Clerk is directed to notify the Court of Appeals of its ruling in accordance with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 24(a)(4). DONE AND ORDERED in Tampa, Florida, on July 17, 2023.
s/William F. Jung
WILLIAM F. JUNG
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
COPIES FURNISHED TO: Plaintiff, pro se Counsel of record