Jordan v. The United States Department of Education et al
Filing
11
OPINION AND ORDER adopting 10 Report and Recommendations. The Clerk shall enter judgment dismissing the case without prejudice, terminate all deadlines, and close the file. Signed by Judge John E. Steele on 10/25/2018. (RKR)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT MYERS DIVISION
ANTHONY M. JORDAN,
Plaintiff,
v.
Case No:
2:17-cv-683-FtM-99CM
THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT
OF
EDUCATION
and
THE
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH FLORIDA,
Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on consideration of the
Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. #10), filed
October 4, 2018, recommending that the case be dismissed without
prejudice.
No objections have been filed and the time to do so
has expired.
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.
636(b)(1);
28 U.S.C. §
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. 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).
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).
Plaintiff's Application to Proceed in District Court Without
Prepaying Fees or Costs (Doc. #2) was denied and plaintiff was
directed to pay the filing fee and file an amended complaint.
(Doc. #8.)
Plaintiff did not comply, and an Order (Doc. #9) to
show cause was issued on June 20, 2018.
Plaintiff did not respond.
The Magistrate Judge recommends that plaintiff has failed to
demonstrate
question
subject
presented
frivolous,
and
matter
by
barred
the
by
jurisdiction
because
Bivens 1 claim
the
statute
of
is
the
federal
implausible
limitations.
and
The
Magistrate Judge recommends that any claim seeking to challenge
the Higher Education Technical Amendments of 1991 as a violation
of the ex post facto clause is also frivolous.
Judge
further
recommends
that
plaintiff’s
The Magistrate
allegations
are
insufficient to state a claim for breach of contract, conversion
or negligence.
After conducting an independent examination of the
file and upon due consideration of the Report and Recommendation,
1
Bivens v. Six Unknown Named
Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971).
- 2 -
Agents
of
Fed.
Bureau
of
the Court accepts the Report and Recommendation of the magistrate
judge.
Accordingly, it is now
ORDERED:
1.
The
Report
and
Recommendation
(Doc.
#10)
is
hereby
adopted and the findings incorporated herein.
2.
The
Clerk
shall
enter
judgment
dismissing
the
case
without prejudice, terminate all pending motions and deadlines,
and close the file.
DONE and ORDERED at Fort Myers, Florida, this
of October, 2018.
Copies:
Hon. Carol Mirando
United States Magistrate Judge
Counsel of Record
Unrepresented parties
- 3 -
25th
day
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?