Robinson v. Oaks et al

Filing 23

ORDER adopting 8 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 2 MOTION for leave to proceed in forma pauperis/affidavit of indigency filed by Albert Robinson. Report and Recommendation 8 is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED and the findings incorporated herein. Plaintiff's Affidavit of Indigency 2 is DENIED and this action is DISMISSED. The Clerk is directed to deny any pending motions as moot, enter judgment, and close the file. Signed by Judge Sheri Polster Chappell on 6/3/2015. (LMF)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT MYERS DIVISION
ALBERT ROBINSON,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No: 2:15-cv-242-FtM-38DNF

DAVID KEITH OAKS, LISA SPADER
PORTER and SECTION 23,
PROPERTY OWNER’S
ASSOCIATION, INC.,
Defendants.
/
ORDER1
This matter comes before the Court on consideration of the Magistrate Judge’s
Report and Recommendation (Doc. #8), filed on May 1, 2015, recommending Plaintiff’s
Affidavit of Indigency (Doc. #2) be denied and this action be dismissed. Plaintiff filed an
objection to the Report and Recommendation on May 12, 2015. (Doc. #14). This matter
is now ripe for review.
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
(11th Cir. 1982); cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1112 (1983). In the absence of specific objections,
there is no requirement that a district judge review factual findings de novo, Garvey v.

1

Disclaimer: Documents filed in CM/ECF may contain hyperlinks to other documents or Web sites. These
hyperlinks are provided only for users’ convenience. Users are cautioned that hyperlinked documents in
CM/ECF are subject to PACER fees. By allowing hyperlinks to other Web sites, this court does not endorse,
recommend, approve, or guarantee any third parties or the services or products they provide on their Web
sites. Likewise, the court has no agreements with any of these third parties or their Web sites. The court
accepts no responsibility for the availability or functionality of any hyperlink. Thus, the fact that a hyperlink
ceases to work or directs the user to some other site does not affect the opinion of the court.

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. Co., 37 F.3d 603, 604 (11th Cir. 1994); Castro
Bobadilla v. Reno, 826 F. Supp. 1428, 1431-32 (S.D. Fla. 1993), aff’d, 28 F.3d 116 (11th
Cir. 1994) (Table).
After conducting an independent examination of the file, the Court agrees with the
Report and Recommendation full heartedly. That is, Plaintiff’s Complaint is frivolous
because objections to state court injunctions do not arise to a cause of action in federal
court and Judge Porter is entitled to immunity. This is true despite Plaintiff’s objection. As
such, the Court accepts the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge.
Accordingly, it is now
ORDERED:
1. Report and Recommendation (Doc. #8) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED and
the findings incorporated herein.
2. Plaintiff’s Affidavit of Indigency (Doc. #2) is DENIED and this action is
DISMISSED.
3. The Clerk is directed to deny any pending motions as moot, enter judgment,
and close the file.
DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida this 3rd day of June, 2015.

Copies: All Parties of Record

2