Opinion
Case No. 6:11-cv-1592-Orl-35GJK.
October 24, 2011
ORDER
THIS CAUSE comes before the Court for consideration of Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis (Dkt. 2), filed on September 28, 2011. On October 4, 2011, Magistrate Gregory J. Kelly issued a Report and Recommendation, recommending that Plaintiff's motion be denied and the Complaint be dismissed as frivolous because absolute judicial immunity operates as an obvious bar to Plaintiff's allegations. (Dkt. 3 at 4) Plaintiff filed an objection on October 11, 2011. (Dkt. 4) Defendants did not file a Response or separate objection and the deadline to do so has passed.
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); United States v. Powell, 628 F.3d 1254, 1256 (11th Cir. 2010). 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); see also United States v. Farias-Gonzalez, 556 F.3d 1181, 1184 n. 1 (11th Cir. 2009). 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. of Ga., 896 F.2d 507, 512 (11th Cir. 1990) (quoting H.R. 1609, 94th Cong., § 2 (1976)). The district judge reviews legal conclusions de novo, even in the absence of an objection.See Cooper-Houston v. S. Ry. Co., 37 F.3d 603, 604 (11th Cir. 1994). A district court may not reject the credibility determinations of a magistrate judge without personally rehearing disputed testimony from the witness. Powell, 628 F.3d at 1256-58.
Upon consideration of the Report and Recommendation, in conjunction with an independent examination of the file, it is hereby ORDERED as follows:
1. The Report and Recommendation (Dkt. 3) is adopted, confirmed, and approved in all respects;
2. Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis (Dkt. 2) is DENIED; and,
3. Plaintiff's Complaint (Dkt. 1) is DISMISSED. Actions against judges for the conduct of their judicial functions are absolutely barred by the doctrine of absolute immunity. Plaintiff is admonished that if he should re-file this action asserting claims of this type, he may be subject to the imposition of sanctions under the applicable Rules of Procedure governing filings in this Court. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 11; see also M.D. FLA. R. 2.03(a).DONE and ORDERED in Orlando, Florida.