Dunkel v. Hamilton
ORDER adopting 49 Report and Recommendation; granting 27 Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint. This case is dismissed. The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment and close the file. Signed by Judge Marcia Morales Howard on 9/12/2016. (JW)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case No.: 3:15-cv-949-J-34PDB
THIS CAUSE is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 49;
Report), entered by the Honorable Patricia D. Barksdale, United States Magistrate Judge,
on August 8, 2016. In the Report, Magistrate Judge Barksdale recommends that Defendant’s
Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint (Dkt. No. 27) be granted, all claims be dismissed,
and the Clerk be directed to enter judgment and close the file. See Report at 27. Plaintiff
has failed to file objections to the Report, and the time for doing so has now passed.
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,
Upon independent review of the file and for the reasons stated in the Magistrate
Judge’s Report, the Court will accept and adopt the legal and factual conclusions
recommended by the Magistrate Judge.1 Accordingly, it is hereby
The Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 49) is
Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint (Dkt. No. 27) is
This case is DISMISSED.
The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment dismissing the case,
terminate any pending motions or deadlines as moot, and close the file.
DONE AND ORDERED at Jacksonville, Florida, this 12th day of September, 2016.
Counsel of Record
Pro Se Plaintiff
The Court notes that with regard to Footnote 4 of the Report, see Report at 5, Michael
Dunkel’s § 2255 motion has now been denied, and judgment was entered in favor of the United States. See
Docket entries 38 and 39 in Case No. 1:13-cr-220-GBL (E.D. Va.).
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?