Opinion
1:19-cv-22164-KMM
10-21-2022
ADACIA H. DOUGLAS, Plaintiff, v. SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Defendant.
ORDER ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
K. MICHAEL MOORE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
THIS CAUSE came before the Court upon Plaintiff's Motion to Reopen Case. (“Mot”) (ECF No. 13). Therein, Plaintiff Adacia Douglas (“Plaintiff”) requests this Court's reconsideration of the claims in her Complaint (ECF No. 1) and her Motion for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis (ECF No. 3), which United States District Court Judge Federico A. Moreno denied on August 12, 2019. (ECF No. 7). On October 6, 2022, the Honorable Lauren Fleischer Louis, United States Magistrate Judge, issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) recommending that Plaintiff's Motion be construed as a motion for reconsideration and commensurately DENIED. (ECF No. 15). The Parties did not file objections to the R&R and the time to do so has passed. The matter is now ripe for review. As set forth below, the Court ADOPTS the R&R.
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)(1); Fed. R. Crim. P. 59(b)(3). The Court “must consider de novo any objection to the magistrate judge's recommendation.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 59(b)(3). A de novo review is therefore required if a party files “a proper, specific objection” to a factual finding contained in the report. Macort v. Prem, Inc., 208 Fed.Appx. 781, 784 (11th Cir. 2006). “It is critical that the objection be sufficiently specific and not a general objection to the report” to warrant de novo review. Id. Yet when a party has not properly objected to the magistrate judge's findings, “the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.” See Keaton v. United States, No. 14-21230-CIV, 2015 WL 12780912, at *1 (S.D. Fla. May 4, 2015); see also Lopez v. Berryhill, No. 17-CV-24263, 2019 WL 2254704, at *2 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 26, 2019) (stating that a district judge “evaluate[s] portions of the R & R not objected to under a clearly erroneous standard of review” (citing Davis v. Apfel, 93 F.Supp.2d 1313, 1317 (M.D. Fla. 2000))).
As set forth in the R&R, Magistrate Judge Louis renders the following conclusions: (1) Plaintiff's motion is best construed as a motion for reconsideration, and therefore subject to the standards applying to that form of attack, see R&R at 2-3; (2) Plaintiff has raised neither a “change in the law nor new evidence” that might warrant the Court's reconsideration of her original claims, see id. at 2-4; (3) Plaintiff's newly raised claims (e.g. that her “email was hack[ed] by local police”; that “U.S. Marshalls [sic] decided to beat [her] up as [she] was walking in the front door”, see generally Mot.) do not address the deficiencies with her original Complaint, and are instead more properly raised in a new lawsuit, see R&R at 4-5. This Court agrees.
Accordingly, UPON CONSIDERATION of the R&R, the pertinent portions of the record, and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the R&R (ECF No. 15) is ADOPTED. Plaintiff's Motion (ECF No. 13) is DENIED.