Pullins v. Haggins et al

Filing 8

ORDER overruling 7 Plaintiff's Motion to Set Aside Order and Motion for Leave to Submit Amended Complaint, which this Court construes as Plaintiff's objection; adopting 6 Report and Recommendation. This case is dismissed, and the Clerk of the Court is directed to close the file. Signed by Judge Marcia Morales Howard on 7/3/2012. (JW)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
JACKSONVILLE DIVISION
JOHN F. PULLINS,
Plaintiff,
vs.

Case No. 3:12-cv-407-J-34MCR

DEAN HAGGINS and R & J TOWING AND
RECOVERY, INC.,
Defendants.
__________________________________/
ORDER

THIS CAUSE is before the Court on Magistrate Judge Monte C. Richardson’s Report
and Recommendation (Doc. No. 6; Report) entered on May 7, 2012. In the Report, Judge
Richardson recommends that the Court deny Plaintiff, John Pullins’ (Pullins), Affidavit of
Indigency (Doc. No. 2; Motion), which Judge Richardson construed as a Motion to Proceed
In Forma Pauperis, and dismiss Pullins’ Complaint (Doc. No. 1; Complaint).

Judge

Richardson based his recommendation of the denial of the Motion on a finding that the Court
lacks subject matter jurisdiction over Pullins’ claims. Report at 5. In reaching his conclusion,
Judge Richardson found that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine1 applies, precluding the Court
from reviewing the state court judgment that Pullins challenges. Report at 3. Thereafter, on
May 18, 2012, Pullins filed a Motion to Set Aside Order and Motion for Leave to Submit
Amended Complaint (Doc. No. 7; Objection), which this Court construes as Pullins’ objection
to the Report.

1

Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923) and District of Columbia Court of Appeals v.
Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983). See, e.g., Roe v. Alabama, 43 F.3d 574 (11th Cir. 1995)(recognizing the
appropriate application of the Rooker-Feldman doctrine in the Eleventh Circuit).

The Court “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). If no specific
objections to findings of facts are filed, the district court is not required to conduct a de novo
review of those findings. See Garvey v. Vaughn, 993 F.2d 776, 779 n.9 (11th Cir. 1993); see
also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). However, the district court must review legal conclusions de
novo. See Cooper-Houston v. S. Ry. Co., 37 F.3d 603, 604 (11th Cir. 1994) (per curiam);
United States v. Rice, No. 2:07-mc-8-FtM-29SPC, 2007 WL 1428615, at * 1 (M.D. Fla. May
14, 2007).
In response to the Report, Pullins has filed his Objection, in which he seeks leave to
file an amended complaint. See Objection. Such an amendment would be governed by
Rule 15, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (Rule(s)). While Rule 15(a)(2) provides that leave
to amend should be freely given, the Rule is, in fact, tempered by considerations where
leave may be denied, including the futility of the amendment. Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178,
182 (1962); see also Sibley v. Lando, 437 F.3d 1067, 1073-74 (11th Cir. 2005)(per curiam);
Bryant v. Dupree, 252 F.3d 1161, 1163 (11th Cir. 2001)(per curiam)(recognizing that the
futility of an amendment provides grounds for a district court to deny leave to amend). Here,
Pullins’ Objection requests leave to amend to assert Constitutional and Civil Rights
violations; however, Pullins fails to assert any basis for an amendment that falls outside the
scope of the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. See Objection. Indeed, Pullins has failed to even
suggest how he would amend his Complaint to state a proper claim. Id. Thus, the Court
finds that justice does not outweigh the futility of this request.

-2-

Upon independent review of the record and for the reasons stated in the Magistrate
Judge’s Report, the Court will overrule the Objection, and accept and adopt the legal and
factual conclusions recommended in the Report by Judge Richardson.
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED:
1.

Plaintiff’s Motion to Set Aside Order and Motion for Leave to Submit Amended

Complaint (Doc. No. 7), which this Court construes as Plaintiff’s objection, is OVERRULED.
2.

Magistrate Judge Monte C. Richardson’s Report and Recommendation (Doc.

No. 6) is ADOPTED.
3.

This case is DISMISSED, and the Clerk of the Court is directed to close the file.

DONE AND ORDERED at Jacksonville, Florida, this 3rd day of July, 2012.

i17
Copies to:
Counsel of Record

-3-