WILLIAMS
v.
PENA
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, dismissing the complaint with prejudice and denying the plaintiff's motion for leave to appeal IFP.
Plaintiff filed a complaint, and the magistrate judge issued a report and recommendation for dismissal. The plaintiff filed objections and a subsequen…
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
v. Case No. 1:21-cv-161-AW-GRJ
JUDGE PHILLIP A. PENA, et al.,
Defendants.
_______________________________/
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND
DENYING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL IFP
I have considered the magistrate judge’s October 28, 2021 Report and Recommendation. ECF No. 11. I have also considered de novo Plaintiff’s objections. ECF No. 12. I now conclude, having carefully considered the matter, that dismissal is appropriate. The Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 11) is adopted and incorporated into this order. The clerk will enter a judgment that says, “Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed with prejudice without leave to amend pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.” The clerk will then close the file. Next, Plaintiff has filed a paper stating that he has “questions about the above mention case of the recommendation from the district court decision,” that he “wish[es] to appeal this case for further action,” and that he has contacted an attorney. ECF No. 13. Because there was no final order at the time, I construed this as a further notice of objection to the report and recommendation. If Plaintiff wishes to appeal the judgment that will enter pursuant to this order, he must file a separate notice of appeal, along with the appellate filing fee. Plaintiff’s motion for leave to appeal IFP (ECF No. 14) is DENIED. Although Plaintiff qualifies financially, I certify, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that an appeal would be “‘without arguable merit either in law or fact.’” Napier v. Preslicka, 314 F. 3d 528, 531 (11th
Cir. 2002) (quoting Bilal v. Driver, 251 F. 3d 1346, 1349 (11th Cir. 2001)). This is for the reasons set out in the Report and Recommendation. SO ORDERED on December 29, 2021. s/ Allen Winsor United States District Judge
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Jamaal Ali Bilal v. Driver, 251 F.3d 1346 (11th Cir. 2001)
- Napier v. Preslicka, 314 F.3d 528 (11th Cir. 2002)