From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Miller v. U.S. Postal Serv.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION
May 22, 2013
CASE NO. 8:13-CIV-952-T-17-AEP (M.D. Fla. May. 22, 2013)

Summary

noting that the court will generally look to whether the person is employed, the person's annual salary, and any other property or assets the person may possess

Summary of this case from Miller v. Elvagy

Opinion

CASE NO. 8:13-CIV-952-T-17-AEP

05-22-2013

CORNETHA MILLER, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE, Defendant.


ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This cause is before the Court on the report and recommendation (R&R) issued by Magistrate Judge Anthony E. Porcelli on April 22, 2013 (Doc. 5). The magistrate judge recommended that the motion for in forma pauperis be denied and the plaintff be given time to remit the filing fee or to have the cause of action be dismissed.

Pursuant to Rule 6.02, Rules of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, the parties had fourteen (14) days after service to file written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations, or be barred from attacking the factual findings on appeal. No timely objections to the report and recommendation were filed.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

When a party makes a timely and specific objection to a finding of fact in the report and recommendation, the district court should make a de novo review of the record with respect to that factual issue. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); U.S. v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667 (1980); Jeffrey S. v. State Board of Education of State of Georgia, 896 f.2d 507 (11th Cir. 1990). However, when no timely and specific objections are filed, case law indicates that the court should review the findings using a clearly erroneous standard. Gropp v. United Airlines, Inc., 817 F.Supp. 1558, 1562 (M.D. Fla. 1993).

The Court has reviewed the report and recommendation and made an independent review of the record. Upon due consideration, the Court concurs with the report and recommendation. Accordingly, it is

ORDERED that the report and recommendation, April 22, 2013 (Doc. 5) be adopted and incorporated by reference; the plaintiff's motion to proceed without payment of filing fee is denied and the plaintiff has up to and including June 10, 2013 to remit the filing fee or this cause of action will be dismissed.

DONE and ORDERED in Chambers, in Tampa, Florida, this 22nd day of May, 2013.

________________________

ELIZABETH A. KOVACHEVICH

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Copies to:
All parties and counsel of record
Assigned Magistrate Judge


Summaries of

Miller v. U.S. Postal Serv.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION
May 22, 2013
CASE NO. 8:13-CIV-952-T-17-AEP (M.D. Fla. May. 22, 2013)

noting that the court will generally look to whether the person is employed, the person's annual salary, and any other property or assets the person may possess

Summary of this case from Miller v. Elvagy

noting that the court will generally look to whether the person is employed, the person's annual salary, and any other property or assets the person may possess

Summary of this case from Polselli v. Hillsborough Area Reg'l Transit Auth.

noting that the court will generally look to whether the person is employed, the person's annual salary, and any other property or assets the person may possess

Summary of this case from Jensen v. Baycare Med. Grp.

considering movant's receipt of disability payments in determining whether she was a pauper

Summary of this case from United States v. Muhleman
Case details for

Miller v. U.S. Postal Serv.

Case Details

Full title:CORNETHA MILLER, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE, Defendant.

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

Date published: May 22, 2013

Citations

CASE NO. 8:13-CIV-952-T-17-AEP (M.D. Fla. May. 22, 2013)

Citing Cases

United States v. Muhleman

The Court considers disability benefits in determining whether the movant is a pauper. See, e.g., Trimble v.…

St. Forin v. United States Small Bus. Admin.

Thomas v. Chattahoochee Jud. Cir., 574 Fed.Appx. 916, 917 (11th Cir. 2014) (citing Martinez, 364 F.3d at…