Opinion
Case No. 6:09-cv-1618-Orl-35DAB.
September 2, 2010
ORDER
THIS CAUSE comes before the Court for consideration of Plaintiff's Motion to File An Appeal In Forma Pauperis (Dkt. 111). On August 17, 2010, United States Magistrate Judge David A. Baker issued a Report and Recommendation, recommending that the Motion be denied. (Dkt. 113) Plaintiff timely filed an objection to the Report and Recommendation on August 27, 2010. (Dkt. 115)
After conducting a careful and complete review of the findings and recommendations, a district judge may accept, reject or modify the Magistrate Judge's report and recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Williams v. Wainwright, 681 F.2d 732, 732 (11th Cir. 1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1112 (1983). A district judge "shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). This requires that the district judge "give fresh consideration to those issues to which specific objection has been made by a party." Jeffrey S. v. State Bd. of Educ., 896 F.2d 507, 512 (11th Cir. 1990) (quoting H.R. 1609, 94th Cong. § 2 (1976)). In the absence of specific objections, there is no requirement that a district judge review factual findings de novo, Garvey v. Vaughn, 993 F.2d 776, 779 n. 9 (11th Cir. 1993), and the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings and recommendations. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The district judge reviews legal conclusions de novo, even in the absence of an objection. See Cooper-Houston v. Southern Ry., 37 F.3d 603, 604 (11th Cir. 1994).
Upon consideration of the Report and Recommendation, in conjunction with an independent examination of the file, the Court is of the opinion that the Report and Recommendation should be adopted, confirmed, and approved in all respects. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that:
1. The Report and Recommendation (Dkt. 113) is CONFIRMED and ADOPTED as part of this Order;
2. Plaintiff's Motion to File An Appeal In Forma Pauperis (Dkt. 111) is DENIED;
3. This Court CERTIFIES that Plaintiff's appeal is not taken in good faith; and
4. Plaintiff's Motion for Review of this Court's Ruling Dismissing the Case (Dkt. 117) is DENIED.DONE and ORDERED in Orlando, Florida, this 2nd day of September 2010.