CRIBBS
v.
SHARRIT
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 application to proceed without paying fees and costs, dismissing the case.
Plaintiff filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis. The Magistrate Judge recommended denying the application and dismissing the case without …
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 Magistrate Judge Authority cases and more on FLexlaw
THIS CAUSE is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 4; Report), entered by the Honorable Monte C. Richardson, United States Magistrate Judge, on October 27, 2021. In the Report, Judge Richardson recommends that Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed in District Court Without Paying Fees or Costs (Dkt. No. 2; Motion) be denied and that this case be dismissed without prejudice. See Report at 1, 7. 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 finding or recommendations by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). If no specific objections to findings of facts are filed, the district court is not required to conduct a de novo review of those findings. See Garvey v. Vaughn, 993 F. 2d 776, 779 n.9 (11th Cir. 1993); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). However, the district court must review legal conclusions de novo. See Cooper-Houston v. Southern Ry. Co., 37 F. 3d 603, 604 (11th Cir. 1994); United States v. Rice, No. 2:07-mc-8-FtM-29SPC, 2007 WL 1428615, at *1 (M.D. Fla. May 14, 2007). Upon independent review of the file and for the reasons stated in the
Magistrate Judge’s Report, the Court will accept and adopt the legal and factual conclusions recommended by the Magistrate Judge. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED:
1. The Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 4) is ADOPTED as the opinion of the Court. 2. Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed in District Court Without Paying Fees or Costs (Dkt. No. 2) is DENIED.
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 17th day of November, 2021.
MARCIA MORALES HOWARD
United States District Judge ja Copies to: Counsel of Record Pro Se Party
3.
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)
- Hoffman v. Ariz. Beverages USA, LLC (M.D. Fla. 2025)