Summary
holding that Younger abstention doctrine applied to the plaintiff's challenge to the state court's finding that he was a vexatious litigant under Florida law, and reiterating that the district court could not interfere with pending civil proceedings involving orders "uniquely in furtherance of the state courts ability to perform their judicial functions."
Summary of this case from Raiser v. Cantil-SakauyeOpinion
Case No. 3:14-cv-805-J-34JRK
07-09-2015
ROBERT CRAIG MACLEOD, Plaintiff, v. RICK SCOTT, Governor, and ATTORNEY GENERAL PAM BONDI, State of Florida Chief Legal Officer, Defendants.
ORDER
THIS CAUSE is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 25; Report), entered by the Honorable James R. Klindt, United States Magistrate Judge, on February 5, 2015. In the Report, Judge Klindt recommends that Plaintiff's Affidavit of Indigency (Doc. No. 2) and Plaintiff's Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs (Doc. No. 3), which the Court collectively construes as a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, be denied, and this action be dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See Report at 9. On February 19, 2015, Plaintiff filed objections to the Report. See Plaintiff's Verified Objections to Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 26; Objections).
The Court "may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made 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 Judge Klindt's Report, the Court will overrule the Objections, and accept and adopt the legal and factual conclusions recommended by the Magistrate Judge.
In doing so the Court notes that shortly after filing the Objections, Plaintiff, without seeking leave of Court, filed two additional amended complaints. See Verified Complaint Amendment 3 (Doc. No. 29; Proposed Third Amended Complaint); Verified Complaint Amendment 4 (Doc. No. 33; Proposed Fourth Amended Complaint). Although these documents are not properly before the Court, in an abundance of caution, before determining whether to accept the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, the Court has considered whether the Proposed Third Amended Complaint and the Proposed Fourth Amended Complaint would cure the Plaintiff's pleading deficiencies. Having determined that they do not, the Court concludes that this action is due to be dismissed. --------
Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED:
1. Plaintiff's Verified Objections to Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 26) are OVERRULED.
2. The Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 25) is ADOPTED as the opinion of the Court.
3. Plaintiff's Affidavit of Indigency (Doc. No. 2) and Plaintiff's Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs (Doc. No. 3), that the Court collectively construes as a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, is DENIED.
4. This case is DISMISSED without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
5. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to terminate all deadlines and motions as moot, and close the case.
DONE AND ORDERED at Jacksonville, Florida, this 9th day of July, 2015.
/s/_________
MARCIA MORALES HOWARD
United States District Judge
ja Copies to: The Honorable James R. Klindt
United States Magistrate Judge
Counsel of Record