From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

McBride v. Smith

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JACKSONVILLE DIVISION
Jul 10, 2015
Case No. 3:14-cv-1246-J-34JRK (M.D. Fla. Jul. 10, 2015)

Opinion

Case No. 3:14-cv-1246-J-34JRK

07-10-2015

JULIUS MCBRIDE, Plaintiff, v. MIKE SMITH, et al., Defendants.


ORDER

THIS CAUSE is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 11; Report), entered by the Honorable James R. Klindt, United States Magistrate Judge, on June 15, 2015. In the Report, Magistrate Judge Klindt recommends that Plaintiff's Affidavit of Indigency (Dkt. No. 2) and the Prisoner Consent Form and Financial Certificate (Dkt. No. 3), collectively construed as a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, and the Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Costs or Fees (Dkt. No. 10), construed as a supplement to the Motion, be denied, and that this case be dismissed without prejudice. See Report at 6-7. Plaintiff has failed to file objections to the Report, and the time for doing so has now passed.

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 fact 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 (11 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 (11 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 accept and adopt the legal and factual conclusions recommended by the Magistrate Judge. Accordingly, it is hereby

ORDERED:

1. The Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 11) is ADOPTED as the opinion of the Court.

2. Plaintiff's Affidavit of Indigency (Dkt. No. 2) and the Prisoner Consent Form and Financial Certificate (Dkt. No. 3), collectively construed as a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, and the Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Costs or Fees (Dkt. No. 10), construed as a supplement to the Motion, are DENIED.

3. This case is DISMISSED without prejudice pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).

4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to terminate all pending motions and deadlines as moot and close the file.

DONE AND ORDERED at Jacksonville, Florida, this 10th 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 Pro Se Party


Summaries of

McBride v. Smith

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JACKSONVILLE DIVISION
Jul 10, 2015
Case No. 3:14-cv-1246-J-34JRK (M.D. Fla. Jul. 10, 2015)
Case details for

McBride v. Smith

Case Details

Full title:JULIUS MCBRIDE, Plaintiff, v. MIKE SMITH, et al., Defendants.

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

Date published: Jul 10, 2015

Citations

Case No. 3:14-cv-1246-J-34JRK (M.D. Fla. Jul. 10, 2015)

Citing Cases

Washington v. Transp. & Sec. Admin.

; Grizzel v. N.C. , No. 1:23CV335, 2024 WL 3257195, at *2 (M.D. N.C. Feb. 1, 2024), report and recommendation…