Opinion
Case No: 5:15-cv-192-Oc-22PRL
07-20-2015
RANDALL LAMONT ROLLE, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES MARSHALS SERVICE, Defendant.
ORDER
This cause comes before the Court on Plaintiff Randall Lamont Rolle's ("Rolle") Objection (Doc. No. 6) to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (R&R) (Doc. No. 5) that his Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis (the "IFP Motion") (Doc. No. 2) be denied and his case dismissed as frivolous.
District courts review de novo any portion of a magistrate judge's disposition of a dispositive motion to which a party has properly objected. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); Ekokotu v. Fed. Express Corp., 408 F. App'x 331, 336 n.3 (11th Cir. 2011) (per curiam). The district judge may reject, modify, or accept in whole or in part the magistrate judge's recommended disposition, among other options. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). De novo review of a magistrate judge's findings of fact must be "independent and based upon the record before the court." LoConte v. Dugger, 847 F.2d 745, 750 (11th Cir. 1988). The district court "need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record" in order to affirm a portion of the Magistrate Judge's recommendation to which there is no timely objection. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee's note (1983).
Unpublished Eleventh Circuit cases are persuasive, but not binding. --------
Rolle's Complaint is hardly a model of clarity, but its genesis appears to be a search of his home conducted pursuant to a warrant by a U.S. Marshals Service Task Force in 2002. The R&R recommended that the IFP Motion be denied because Rolle's claims are barred by res judicata and the applicable statute of limitations. Having extensively reviewed the factual allegations and relevant law in this matter, the Court agrees. Rolle admits that the Eleventh Circuit previously ruled against him on the same allegations he presents in the instant Complaint. Even if it had not, Rolle's claims come nearly ten years too late, as the statute of limitations would have run sometime in 2006. This action is frivolous, and neither the Complaint nor the Objection suggests that Rolle has any cognizable claim to relief.
Based on the foregoing, it is ordered as follows:
1. Plaintiff Randall Lamont Rolle's Objection (Doc. No. 6) to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation are OVERRULED. The Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 5) is ADOPTED and CONFIRMED and made a part of this Order.
2. Plaintiff's construed Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. No. 2) is DENIED.
3. Plaintiff's Complaint (Doc. No. 1) is DISMISSED as frivolous.
4. All remaining pending Motions are DENIED as moot.
DONE and ORDERED in Chambers, in Orlando, Florida on July 20, 2015.
/s/_________
ANNE C. CONWAY
United States District Judge
Copies furnished to: Counsel of Record
Unrepresented Parties