Macleod v. Wadsworth

Filing 53

ORDER denying 50 Plaintiff's Motion for Oral Argument on Jurisdiction; overruling 42 Plaintiff's Verified Objections; adopting 41 Report and Recommendation to the extent stated in the Order; denying 3 Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. Plaintiff's claims for injunctive relief are dismissed without prejudice. Plaintiff's claims for monetary damages are dismissed with prejudice The Clerk of the Court is directed to close the file. Signed by Judge Marcia Morales Howard on 10/6/2015. (JW)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
JACKSONVILLE DIVISION

ROBERT CRAIG MACLEOD,
Plaintiff,
vs.

Case No. 3:14-cv-1018-J-34MCR

GAIL WADSWORTH, in her official capacity
as Court Clerk and Comptroller of Flagler
County, Florida,
Defendant.
_____________________________________/

ORDER

THIS CAUSE is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (Doc. No.
41; Report), entered by the Honorable Monte C. Richardson, United States Magistrate
Judge, on January 30, 2015.

In the Report, Judge Richardson recommends that

Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs (Doc.
No. 3), which the Court construes as a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, be denied,
that Plaintiff’s claims for injunctive relief be dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction, and that Plaintiff’s claims for monetary damages be dismissed with
prejudice. See Report at 11. On February 13, 2015, Plaintiff filed objections to the Report
and a sworn affidavit regarding his objections. See Plaintiff’s Verified Objections to
Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 42; Objections); Sworn Affidavit (Doc. No. 43).
In addition, on July 14, 2015, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Oral Argument on Jurisdiction

(Doc. No. 50; Motion for Oral Argument). However, upon review of the record, the Court
determines that oral argument will not assist the Court in this instance, and therefore, the
Motion for Oral Argument is due to be denied.
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. Southern Ry. Co., 37 F.3d 603, 604 (11th
Cir. 1994); United States v. Rice, No. 2:07-mc-8-FtM-29SPC, 2007 WL 1428615, at * 1
(M.D. Fla. May 14, 2007).
Upon independent review of the file, the Court will overrule the Objections, and
accept and adopt the legal and factual conclusions recommended by the Magistrate
Judge with the exception of the conclusion that Plaintiff’s claim for monetary relief is not
barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine.1
Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED:
1.

1

Plaintiff’s Motion for Oral Argument on Jurisdiction (Doc. No. 50) is DENIED.

While Eleventh Circuit precedent suggests that such a claim would be excepted from the application of
the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, see Drees v. Ferguson, 396 F. App’x 656, 658 (11th Cir. 2010) & Sibley v.
Lando, 437 F.3d 1067, 1070-71 & n.3 (11th Cir. 2005), the court has not directly addressed this issue.
Nevertheless, even if Plaintiff’s claim for damages is not barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, Plaintiff’s
claim is due to be dismissed because Defendant is entitled to judicial immunity.
2

2.

Plaintiff’s Verified Objections to Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 42)
are OVERRULED.

3.

The Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 41) is
ADOPTED as the opinion of the Court to the extent stated in this Order.2

4.

Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees
or Costs (Doc. No. 3), which the Court construes as a Motion to Proceed In
Forma Pauperis, is DENIED.

5.

Plaintiff’s claims for injunctive relief are DISMISSED without prejudice
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3) for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction.

6.

Plaintiff’s claims for monetary damages are DISMISSED with prejudice
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(iii) for seeking monetary relief against
a defendant who is immune from such relief.

2

In doing so the Court notes that shortly after filing the Objections, Plaintiff, without seeking leave of Court,
filed two additional amended complaints. See Verified Complaint Amendment 2 (Doc. No. 45; Proposed
Second Amended Complaint); Verified Complaint Amendment 3 (Doc. No. 48; Proposed Third Amended
Complaint). Although these documents are not properly before the Court, in an abundance of caution,
before determining whether to accept the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, the Court has
considered whether the Proposed Second Amended Complaint and the Proposed Third Amended
Complaint would cure the Plaintiff’s pleading deficiencies. Having determined that they do not, the Court
concludes that this action is due to be dismissed.

3

7.

The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to terminate all deadlines and motions
as moot, and close the case.

DONE AND ORDERED at Jacksonville, Florida, this 6th day of October, 2015.

lc18
Copies to:
The Honorable Monte C. Richardson
United States Magistrate Judge
Counsel of Record

4