HASTINGS

v.

SMITH

M.D. Fla. | 2019-08-16

District Court, M.D. Florida (2019)

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.

Holding

The court adopted the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, denying the application to proceed in forma pauperis and dismissing the case.

Facts & Procedural History

Plaintiff failed to file an amended complaint after multiple extensions and an order to show cause. The Magistrate Judge recommended dismissal for fai…

The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Topics

Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis Report And Recommendation Review Failure To Prosecute

Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis cases and more on FLexlaw

Opinion of the Court

This matter is before the Court on consideration of the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. #14), filed July 19, 2019, recommending that the Application to Proceed In District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs (Doc. #2) be denied and the case be dismissed for failure to prosecute. No objections have been filed and the time to do so has expired.¹ 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), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1112 (1983). In the absence of specific

the Report and Recommendation was issued for failure to prosecute. After conducting an independent examination of the file and upon due consideration of the Report and Recommendation, the Court accepts the Report and Recommendation of the magistrate judge. Accordingly, it is now ORDERED: 1. The Report and Recommendation (Doc. #14) is hereby adopted and the findings incorporated herein.

2. Plaintiff's Application to Proceed In District Court

Without Prepaying Fees or Costs (Doc. #2) is DENIED.

3. The Clerk shall enter judgment dismissing the case without prejudice, terminate all pending motions and deadlines, and close the file. DONE and ORDERED at Fort Myers, Florida, this 16th day of August, 2019.

E. STEELE

Sq IGOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Copies: Hon. Mac R. McCoy United States Magistrate Judge Counsel of Record Unrepresented parties

Footnotes

1 The Clerk mailed a copy of the Report and Recommendation to plaintiff on July 22, 2019, and the Court allowed additional days for mailing pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(d). 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). The district judge reviews legal conclusions de novo, even in the absence of an objection. See Cooper-Houston v. Southern 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). The Magistrate Judge initially directed plaintiff to file an Amended Complaint on February 19, 2019. (Doc. #6.) When no amended complaint was timely filed, the Magistrate Judge issued an Order to Show Cause (Doc. #7). The Magistrate Judge granted four extensions of time to comply and to file an amended complaint. (Docs. ## 9, 11, 12, 13.) Upon expiration of the last deadline,

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Authorities Cited

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)
Williams v. Wainwright, 459 U.S. 1112 (U.S. 1983)

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw