From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Farrukh v. Univ. of S. Fla. Bd. of Trs.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION
Oct 19, 2020
Case No: 8:20-cv-73-T-33TGW (M.D. Fla. Oct. 19, 2020)

Opinion

Case No: 8:20-cv-73-T-33TGW

10-19-2020

ABDUL REHMAN FARRUKH, Plaintiff, v. UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH FLORIDA BOARD OF TRUSTEES, et al., Defendants.


ORDER

This matter comes before the Court upon consideration of United States Magistrate Judge Thomas G. Wilson's Report and Recommendation (Doc. # 30), entered on September 30, 2020, recommending that the Court defer ruling on Plaintiff Abdul Rehman Farrukh's Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. # 2) and that his Second Amended Complaint (Doc. # 25) be dismissed without prejudice.

As of the date of this Order, no objections have been filed and the time for filing objections has lapsed. For the reasons that follow, the Court accepts and adopts the Report and Recommendation, defers ruling on Farrukh's Motion, and dismisses the Second Amended Complaint without prejudice. Discussion

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). 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. S. 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).

Upon due consideration of the record, including Judge Wilson's Report and Recommendation, the Court adopts the Report and Recommendation and dismisses the Second Amended Complaint without prejudice. The Court agrees with Judge Wilson's well-reasoned findings of fact and conclusions of law.

Accordingly, it is now

ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED:

(1) The Report and Recommendation (Doc. # 30) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED.

(2) The Court DEFERS RULING on Plaintiff Abdul Rehman Farrukh's pro se Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. # 2) pending an opportunity for Farrukh to file a Third Amended Complaint which states a cognizable claim that complies with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

(3) Farrukh's Second Amended Complaint (Doc. # 25) is DISMISSED without prejudice. Farrukh may file a Third Amended Complaint within 30 days of the date of this Order.

DONE and ORDERED in Chambers in Tampa, Florida, this 19th day of October, 2020.

/s/_________

VIRGINIA M. HERNANDEZ COVINGTON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE


Summaries of

Farrukh v. Univ. of S. Fla. Bd. of Trs.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION
Oct 19, 2020
Case No: 8:20-cv-73-T-33TGW (M.D. Fla. Oct. 19, 2020)
Case details for

Farrukh v. Univ. of S. Fla. Bd. of Trs.

Case Details

Full title:ABDUL REHMAN FARRUKH, Plaintiff, v. UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH FLORIDA BOARD OF…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION

Date published: Oct 19, 2020

Citations

Case No: 8:20-cv-73-T-33TGW (M.D. Fla. Oct. 19, 2020)