MCCLAIN
v.
NAVY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION
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 plaintiff's application to proceed without prepayment of fees and costs.
Plaintiff filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis, which was recommended for denial by the Magistrate Judge. The plaintiff failed to file ob…
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 Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis cases and more on FLexlaw
THIS CAUSE is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 6; Report), entered by the Honorable Joel B. Toomey, United States Magistrate Judge, on December 5, 2022. In the Report, Judge Toomey recommends that Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs (Long Form) (Dkt. No. 2; Motion) and Plaintiff’s [Amended] Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs (Long Form) (Dkt. No. 5; Amended Motion) be denied and that this case be dismissed without prejudice. See Report at 1, 4. Plaintiff has failed to file objections to the Report, and the time for doing so has now passed. The Court “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).
Pursuant to Rule 72, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (Rule(s)), the Court “must determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition that has been properly objected to.” See Rule 72(b)(3); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). However, a party waives the right to challenge on appeal any unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions. See 11th Cir. R. 3-1.1 As such, the Court reviews those portions of the Magistrate Judge’s findings to which no objection was filed for plain error and only if necessary, in the interests of justice. See id.; see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985) (“It does not appear that
Congress intended to require district court review of a magistrate [judge’s] factual or legal conclusions, under a de novo or any other standard, when neither party objects to those findings.”); Dupree v. Warden, 715 F. 3d 1295, 1304-05 (11th Cir. 2013) (recommending the adoption of what would become
11th Circuit Rule 3-1 so that district courts do not have “to spend significant amounts of time and resources reviewing every issue—whether objected to or not.”).
3. This case is DISMISSED without prejudice.
4. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate all pending motions and deadlines as moot and close the file. DONE AND ORDERED in Jacksonville, Florida, this 3rd day of January, 2028.
United States District Judge ja Copies to: Counsel of Record Pro Se Party
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (U.S. 1985)
- Dupree v. Warden, Attorney Gen., State of Ala., 715 F.3d 1295 (11th Cir. 2013)