Opinion
22-cv-10020-KMM
05-20-2022
MARVIN PRICE, Plaintiff, v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., Defendant.
ORDER
K. MICHAEL MOORE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
THIS CAUSE came before the Court upon Plaintiff Marvin Price's (“Plaintiff”) Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. (“Mot.”) (ECF No. 3). The Court referred the matter to the Honorable Lauren F. Louis, United States Magistrate Judge, to take “all necessary and proper action as required by law regarding all pre-trial, non-dispositive matters including discovery, and for a Report and Recommendation on any dispositive matters.” (ECF No. 5). On April 29, 2022, Magistrate Judge Louis entered a Report and Recommendation, recommending that Plaintiff's Motion be denied and that the Complaint, (“Compl.”) (ECF No. 1), be dismissed with prejudice. (“R&R”) (ECF No. 10) at 3. On May 13, 2022 and May 16, 2022, Plaintiff submitted two documents bearing the title “Motion for More Definite Statement.” (ECF Nos. 11, 12). The matter is now ripe for review. As set forth below, the Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED.
The Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by a magistrate judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(3). The Court “must consider de novo any objection to the magistrate judge's recommendation.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(3). A de novo review is required if a party files “a proper, specific objection” to a finding contained in the report. Macort v. Prem, Inc., 208 Fed.Appx. 781, 784 (11th Cir. 2006). “It is critical that the objection be sufficiently specific and not a general objection to the report” to warrant de novo review. Id.
However, a party's objections are improper if they expand upon and reframe arguments already made and considered by the magistrate judge, or simply disagree with the magistrate judge's conclusions. See Melillo v. United States, No. 17-CV-80489, 2018 WL 4258355, at *1 (S.D. Fla. Sept. 6, 2018); see also Marlite, Inc. v. Eckenrod, No. 10-23641-CIV, 2012 WL 3614212, at *2 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 21, 2012) (“It is improper for an objecting party to . . . submit [ ] papers to a district court which are nothing more than a rehashing of the same arguments and positions taken in the original papers submitted to the Magistrate Judge. Clearly, parties are not to be afforded a ‘second bite at the apple' when they file objections to a R & R.”) (quoting Camardo v. Gen. Motors Hourly-Rate Emps. Pension Plan, 806 F.Supp. 380, 382 (W.D.N.Y. 1992)). When the objecting party has not properly objected to the magistrate judge's findings, “the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.” See Keaton v. United States, No. 14-21230-CIV, 2015 WL 12780912, at *1 (S.D. Fla. May 4, 2015); see also Lopez v. Berryhill, No. 17-CV-24263, 2019 WL 2254704, at *2 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 26, 2019) (stating that a district judge “evaluate[s] portions of the R & R not objected to under a clearly erroneous standard of review” (citing Davis v. Apfel, 93 F.Supp.2d 1313, 1317 (M.D. Fla. 2000))).
On May 13, 2022 and May 16, 2022, Plaintiff filed two documents titled “Motion for More Definite Statement.” (ECF Nos. 11, 12). Therein, Plaintiff appears to supplement his Complaint with further detail. Plaintiff's filings are not proper objections to Magistrate Judge Louis's Report and Recommendation. Nor do they remedy the deficiencies identified in the Report and Recommendation. Accordingly, this Court need only be satisfied that there is no clear error. See Keaton, 2015 WL 12780912, at *1
As set forth in the Report and Recommendation, Magistrate Judge Louis found that Plaintiff's Complaint fails to state a claim for relief against Defendant Bank of America, N.A. R&R at 3. Specifically, Magistrate Judge Louis found that, “[e]ven construing Plaintiff's filing liberally, the Court is unable to ascertain what claim, if any, is made, nor what relief is sought, ” as Plaintiff “does not allege any misconduct by Defendant giving ris[e] to any claim or which could be construed to constitute a violation under any law.” Id. Because Plaintiff's Complaint alleges no discernible claim for relief, and because Plaintiff is unlikely to do so if permitted to amend, Magistrate Judge Louis recommends that Plaintiff's Motion be denied, and the Complaint be dismissed with prejudice. Id. at 3.
This Court agrees.
Accordingly, UPON CONSIDERATION of the Motion, the Complaint, the Report and Recommendation, the pertinent portions of the record, and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Plaintiff Marvin Price's Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (ECF No. 3) is DENIED, Magistrate Judge Louis's Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 10) is ADOPTED, and Plaintiff's Complaint (ECF No. 1) is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. The Clerk of Court is INSTRUCTED to CLOSE this case. All pending motions, if any, are DENIED AS MOOT.
DONE AND ORDERED.