THOMAS
v.
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAY SAFETY AND MOTOR VEHICLES
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 held that the plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal is denied because he failed to establish that his appeal is taken in good faith.
Plaintiff moved to appeal the dismissal of his case with prejudice in forma pauperis. The Magistrate Judge recommended denying the motion to proceed i…
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 28 U.S.C. § 1915(A)(3) cases and more on FLexlaw
Plaintiff Noel Vincent Thomas moves to appeal the Court’s order dismissing his
case with prejudice, (Doc. 9), in forma pauperis. (Doc. 12.) For the reasons explained in the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 13), his motion to appeal in forma pauperis is denied. After conducting a careful and complete review of the findings and recommendations, a district judge may accept, reject, or modify a magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Ifa party files a timely and specific objection to a finding of fact by a magistrate judge, the district court must conduct a de novo review with respect to that factual issue. Stokes v. Singletary, 952 F. 2d 1567, 1576 (11th Cir. 1992). The district court reviews legal conclusions de novo, even in the absence of an objection. See Cooper-Houston v. S. Ry. Co., 37 F. 3d 603, 604 (11th Cir. 1994); Ashworth v. Glades Cnty. Bd. of Cnty. Comm’rs, 379 F. Supp. 3d 1244, 1246 (M.D. Fla. 2019). Here, Thomas provides no reason that the Court’s dismissal of his case erred. And like his objection to the Magistrate Judge’s Report recommending dismissal of his petition, his objection here, (Doc. 14), does not identify any specific flaws in the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation that IFP be denied here. Therefore, he fails to establish that his appeal is taken in good faith as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). Accordingly, the following is ORDERED:
1. The Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 13) is ADOPTED and made part of this Order for all purposes. 2. Plaintiffs Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 12) is DENIED. DONE AND ORDERED at Tampa, Florida, on October 5, 2022.
/s/ William F. Jung
WILLIAM F. JUNG
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
COPIES FURNISHED TO: Counsel of Record
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Ashworth v. Glades Cnty. Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs, 379 F. Supp. 3d 1244 (M.D. Fla. 2019)