Opinion
6:23-cv-1958-CEM-RMN
10-31-2023
ROBERT FIEDLER; and MURIEL FIEDLER, Plaintiffs, v. SUSAN STACY; NANCY BRANDT; GENNIFER BRIDGES; GINGER BOYD; ADAM J. KNIGHT; and JACQUELINE SIMMS-PETREDIS, Defendants.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
ROBERT M. NORWAY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
This cause comes before the Court for consideration without oral argument on Plaintiffs' Amended Motion to Proceed in forma pauperis (“Amended IFP Motion,” Dkt. 13), filed October 30, 2023. I respectfully recommend denying the Amended IFP Motion.
Previously, on October 10, 2023, Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP Motion,” Dkt. 2), which I issued a Report and Recommendation regarding on October 24, 2023 (Dkt. 12). In the still pending Report and Recommendation, I recommend denying the IFP Motion and dismissing the Complaint with leave to file an amended complaint. Dkt. 12 at 1. The Complaint indicates that Plaintiffs action arises from their alleged inability to assert defenses in their ongoing foreclosure case in the Circuit Court of the Eighteenth Judicial Circuit in and for Seminole County, Florida under Case Number 2015-CA-000412. Dkt. 1 at 5, 8. The dismissal rationale is based on this case being barred by the Younger abstention doctrine. Id. at 5. The Amended IFP only differs from the initial IFP in that a few numbers have been updated and it contains an additional page detailing that Plaintiff Robert Fieldler expects to receive an inheritance from his mother's estate in the next year. See Dkts. 13, 13-1. Those changes do not change the analysis concerning this Court being prohibited from interfering with Plaintiffs' pending state court proceeding.
Accordingly, I respectfully RECOMMEND that Plaintiffs' Amended Motion to Proceed in forma pauperis (Dkt. 13) be DENIED and Plaintiffs' Complaint (Dkt. 3) be DISMISSED without prejudice for the reasons detailed in the Report and Recommendation at docket number 12.
NOTICE TO PARTIES
“Within 14 days after being served with a copy of [a report and recommendation], a party may serve and file specific written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(2). “A party may respond to another party's objections within 14 days after being served with a copy.” Id. A party's failure to serve and file specific objections to the proposed findings and recommendations alters review by the district judge and the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, including waiver of the right to challenge anything to which no specific objection was made. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B); 11th Cir. R. 3-1.
Entered in Orlando, Florida, on October 31, 2023.