Robinson v. Section 23 Property Owner's Association, Inc. et al

Filing 18

ORDER adopting 17 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 1 Complaint filed by Albert Robinson. The Report and Recommendation 17 is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED and the findings incorporated herein. The above-captioned case is DISMISSED.The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to enter judgment accordingly, terminate any pending deadlines, and close the file. Signed by Judge Sheri Polster Chappell on 8/28/2017. (LMF)

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

Case No: 2:16-cv-888-FtM-38CM

SECTION 23 PROPERTY OWNER’S
ASSOCIATION, INC., SECTION 23,
PROPERTY OWNER’S
ASSOCIATION, INC., JUDGE LISE
MARIE SPADER PORTER, JUDGE
JOHN LEO BURNS, DAVID KEITH
OAKS, DAVID K. OAKS P.A. and
DAVID K. OAKS TRUST,
Defendants.
/
OPINION AND ORDER1
This matter comes before the Court on United States Magistrate Judge Carol
Mirando’s Report and Recommendation.

(Doc. 17).

Judge Mirando recommends

dismissing pro se Plaintiff Albert Robinson’s Complaint for failure to comply with the
Court’s orders, failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, and failure to comply with
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Doc. 17). No party has filed an objection to the
Report and Recommendation, and the time to do so has expired.

1

Disclaimer: Documents filed in CM/ECF may contain hyperlinks to other documents or
websites. 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 websites, this Court does not endorse, recommend, approve,
or guarantee any third parties or the services or products they provide on their websites.
Likewise, the Court has no agreements with any of these third parties or their websites.
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.

A district judge “may accept, reject, or modify in whole or in part, the findings or
recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The 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.” Id. And “[t]he judge
may also receive further evidence or recommit the matter to the magistrate judge with
instructions.” Id.
After examining the file carefully and independently, and upon considering Judge
Mirando’s findings and recommendations, the Court accepts and adopts the Report and
Recommendation.
Accordingly, it is now
ORDERED:
1. The Report and Recommendation (Doc. 17) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED
and the findings incorporated herein.
2. The above-captioned case is DISMISSED.
3. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to enter judgment accordingly, terminate any
pending deadlines, and close the file.
DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida this 28th day of August 2017.

Copies: All Parties of Record

2