Collier v. Jackson

Full title: WALLACE GARY COLLIER, Plaintiff, v. ZEARAH JACKSON, et al., Defendants

Court: United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Jacksonville Division

Date published: Jan 20, 2010

Case No. 3:09-cv-935-J-34MCR (M.D. Fla. Jan. 20, 2010)

Opinion

Case No. 3:09-cv-935-J-34MCR.

January 20, 2010

ORDER ¹

1 This is a "written opinion" under § 205(a)(5) of the E-Government Act and therefore is available electronically. However, it has been entered only to decide the issues addressed herein and is not intended for official publication or to serve as precedent.

MARCIA HOWARD, Magistrate Judge

THIS CAUSE is before the Court on Magistrate Judge Monte C. Richardson's Report and Recommendation, entered October 1, 2009. (Doc. No. 6; Report). In the Report, Magistrate Judge Richardson recommended that this case be dismissed for failing to set forth an identifiable claim or ground for relief. See Report at 5. Plaintiff filed objections to the Report on October 14, 2009, in which he asserted that 18 U.S.C. 1761(c) provided for a private right of action.² See Response to Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 10) at 2-3.

2 Plaintiff's contention simply contradicts Magistrate Judge Richardson's conclusion that § 1761(c) does not provide a private right of action. See Report at 3-5.

The Court "may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made 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, it is hereby

ORDERED:

1. Plaintiff's objections to Magistrate Judge Richardson's Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 6) are

OVERRULED, and the Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED as the opinion of the Court.

2. Plaintiff's Complaint (Doc. No. 1) is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

3. The Clerk is DIRECTED to close this file.

DONE AND ORDERED at Jacksonville, Florida.