Opinion
8:24-cv-01829-MSS-NHA
11-08-2024
C. JOHN FANTEL, Plaintiff, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Defendant.
ORDER
MARY S. STRIVEN, UNITED §TATES DISTRICT JUDGE
THIS CAUSE comes before the Court for consideration of Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, (Dkt. 2). On October 18, 2024, United States Magistrate Judge Natalie Hirt Adams issued a Report and Recommendation, recommending: (i) denial without prejudice of Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, (Dkt. 2); (ii) dismissal without prejudice of Plaintiff's Complaint, (Dkt. 1), subject to Plaintiff's right to either pay the filing fee or file an amended complaint and motion to proceed in forma pauperis, within 60-days of the Court's order of dismissal; and (iii) dismissal of the case with prejudice if, at the close of the 60-day period, Plaintiff has failed to file amended documents or to pay the filing fee. (Dkt. 3) The time to file written objections to the Report and Recommendation's factual findings and legal conclusions has passed, and Plaintiff has not filed any written objections.
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, 732 (11th Cir. 1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1112 (1983). A district judge “shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). This requires that the district judge “give fresh consideration to those issues to which specific objection has been made by a party.” Jeffrey S. v. State Bd. of Educ., 896 F.2d 507, 512 (11th Cir.1990) (quoting H.R. 1609, 94th Cong. § 2 (1976)). 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. Southern Ry., 37 F.3d 603, 604 (11th Cir. 1994).
Upon consideration of the Report and Recommendation, in conjunction with an independent examination of the file, the Court is of the opinion that the Report and Recommendation should be adopted, confirmed, and approved in all respects. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that:
1. The Report and Recommendation, (Dkt. 3), is CONFIRMED and ADOPTED as part of this Order.
2. Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, (Dkt. 2), is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
3. Plaintiff's Complaint, (Dkt. 1), is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
4. If Plaintiff seeks to pay the filing fee or file an amended complaint and motion to proceed in forma pauperis, he may do so no later than sixty (60) days from the date of this Order. Plaintiff is warned that if he attempts to file an amended complaint without a fair basis in fact or law, he may be subjected to sanctions pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 11.
To the extent Plaintiff intends to continue to represent himself in this matter, he should familiarize himself with both the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules for the Middle District of Florida, copies of which can be reviewed in the Clerk's Office, located on the second floor of the Sam M. Gibbons United States Courthouse, 801 North Florida Avenue, Tampa, Florida, or on the court's website at https://www.flmd.uscourts.gov/local-rules.
5. Failure to file an amended complaint within the time allotted as directed will result in this Order becoming a final judgment and dismissal of Plaintiff's case with prejudice. 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.