SHARPE
v.
DESANTIS
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 report and recommendation, denying the plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis and dismissing the complaint without prejudice, with leave to amend.
Plaintiff filed a complaint and a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. The Magistrate Judge recommended denying the IFP motion and dismissing the comp…
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 Report And Recommendation cases and more on FLexlaw
This matter is before the Court on consideration of the report and recommendation of Sean P. Flynn, United States Magistrate Judge, entered on October 19, 2020. (Doc. 3). Judge Flynn recommends Plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 2) be denied without prejudice, and that his complaint (Doc. 1) be dismissed without prejudice with leave to file an amended complaint due to several deficiencies. Neither Plaintiff nor Defendants filed an objection to the report and recommendation, and the time to object has expired. After conducting a careful and complete review of the findings and recommendations, a district judge may accept, reject, or modify the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Williams v. Wainwright, 681 F. 2d 732 (11th Cir. 1982). In the absence of 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. S. Ry. Co., 37 F. 3d 603, 604 (11th Cir. 1994); Castro Bobadilla v. Reno, 826 F. Supp. 1428, 1431-32 (S.D. Fla. 1993), aff’d, 28 F. 3d 116 (11th Cir. 1994) (table). Upon due consideration of the record, including Judge Flynn’s report and recommendation, the Court adopts the report and recommendation. Consequently,
Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis motion is denied without prejudice. The complaint is dismissed without prejudice with leave to amend to cure the deficiencies identified by Judge Flynn in his report and recommendation. Plaintiff is directed to file his amended complaint on or before December 4, 2020. Failure to file an amended complaint as directed will result in this Order becoming a final judgment. See Auto. Alignment & Body Serv., Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 953 F. 3d 707, 719-20 (11th Cir. 2020).
Accordingly, it is ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED: (1) Judge Flynn’s report and recommendation (Doc. 3) is AFFIRMED and ADOPTED and INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE into this Order for all purposes, including appellate review. (2) Plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 2) is hereby
DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
(3) The complaint (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, with leave toamend. Plaintiff directed to file his amended complaint on or before December 4, 2020, along with a renewed motion to proceed in forma pauperis. Failure to file an amended complaint as directed will result in this Order becoming a final judgment. See Auto. Alignment & Body Serv., Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 953 F. 3d 707, 719-20 (11th Cir. 2020). DONE and ORDERED in Chambers, in Tampa, Florida, this 4th day of November, 2020.
f Lf. {Ow os al [
TOM BARBER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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)
- Castro Bobadilla v. Reno, 1993 WL 259424 (S.D. Fla. 1993)