Opinion
No. 4:06-CV-090-SPM.
July 6, 2006
ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND DISMISSING CASE
THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon the magistrate judge's report and recommendation (doc. 10) dated April 12, 2006. The parties have been furnished a copy and have been afforded an opportunity to file objections. Plaintiff filed his objections (doc. 12) on April 25, 2006.
Pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 636(b)(1), I have made a de novo determination of those portions to which an objection has been made. While Plaintiff may be correct in his assertion that Pulliam v. Allen, 566 U.S. 422 (1984) does not necessarily provide immunity from suits seeking injunctive relief, Plaintiff has not shown the "real and immediate" threat of future injury required to obtain prospective injunctive relief. See, e.g., Focus on the Family v. Pinellas Suncoast Transit Auth., 344 F.3d 1263 (11th Cir. 2003); Nat'l Parks Conservation Ass'n v. Norton, 324 F.3d 1229 (11th Cir. 2003); Wooden v. Bd. of Regents of the Univ. Sys. of Georgia, 247 F.3d 1262 (11th Cir. 2001). Plaintiff is simply attempting to argue that the Defendants, all of whom are judges sitting on the First District Court of Appeal of Florida, are violating his constitutional rights by not agreeing with his view of Florida Statutes section 947.16(3) and "advis[ing] the Probation and Parole Commission that [the First District] relinquishes its parole veto authority." See doc. 1 at 11. Plaintiff's arguments are meritless. Accordingly, it is
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
1. The magistrate judge's report and recommendation (doc. 10) is adopted and incorporated by reference in this order.
2. The complaint (doc. 1) is hereby dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).
DONE AND ORDERED.