Opinion
Case No. 3:15-cv-890-J-34MCR
12-08-2016
MICHAEL HUTCHISON, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent.
Copies to: Hon. Monte C. Richardson Counsel of Record Pro Se Party
ORDER
THIS CAUSE is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 11; Report), entered by the Honorable Monte C. Richardson, United States Magistrate Judge, on May 12, 2016. In the Report, Magistrate Judge Richardson recommends that Michael Hutchison's ("Petitioner") Affidavit of Indigency, which the Court construed as a Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis (Doc. 2; Application), be denied, his Motion to Rule on the Merits (Doc. 10; Motion), be denied as moot, and the case be dismissed without prejudice. See Report at 12. On May 26, 2016, Petitioner filed his Response to Report and Recommendation (Doc. 13; Objection), which the Court construes as an objection to the Report. Thus, the matter is ripe for review.
The Response was filed with the Court on May 31, 2016, but the Petitioner certified the response and delivered it to Union Correctional Facility for mailing on May 26, 2016.
The Court "may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the finding or recommendations by the magistrate judge." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). If no specific objections to findings of facts are filed, the district court is not required to conduct a de novo review of those findings. See Garvey v. Vaughn, 993 F.2d 776, 779 n.9 (11th Cir. 1993); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). However, the district court must review legal conclusions de novo. See Cooper-Houston v. Southern Ry. Co., 37 F.3d 603, 604 (11th Cir. 1994); United States v. Rice, No. 2:07-mc-8-FtM-29SPC, 2007 WL 1428615, at *1 (M.D. Fla. May 14, 2007).
Upon independent review of the file and for the reasons stated in the Magistrate Judge's Report, the Court will overrule the Objection and accept and adopt the legal and factual conclusions recommended by the Magistrate Judge. Accordingly, it is hereby
The Court construes the citation of Hughes v. Rowe on page 5 of the Report to read 449 U.S. 5, 9 (1980) (per curiam) and the citation of Buccheri-Bianca v. Heckler on page 11 of the Report to read 768 F.2d 1152, 1155 (10th Cir. 1985). --------
ORDERED:
1. Petitioner's Response to Report and Recommendation (Doc. 13), which the Court construes as an objection to the Report, is OVERRULED.
2. The Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (Doc. 11) is ADOPTED as the opinion of the Court.
3. Petitioner's Affidavit of Indigency (Doc. 2), which the Court construed as a Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis, is DENIED.
4. Petitioner's Motion to Rule on the Merits (Doc. 10) is DENIED as moot.
5. The case is DISMISSED without prejudice, and the Clerk of the Court is directed to close the file.
DONE AND ORDERED in Jacksonville, Florida, this 8th day of December, 2016.
/s/_________
MARCIA MORALES HOWARD
United States District Judge i36 Copies to: Hon. Monte C. Richardson Counsel of Record Pro Se Party