Simpkins v. Andrews et al

Filing 9

ORDER overruling 8 Plaintiff's Objection; adopting 7 Report and Recommendation; dismissing 1 Complaint; denying 3 Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Proceed IFP; denying 5 and 6 Plaintiff's Motions for Leave to File an Amended Complaint; denying 2 Plaintiff's Motion for Appointment of Counsel. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close the file. Signed by Judge Marcia Morales Howard on 9/6/2017. (JW)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
JACKSONVILLE DIVISION

LEONARDO SIMPKINS,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 3:17-cv-148-J-34PDB

DIAN ANDREWS, et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER
THIS CAUSE is before the Court on the Report & Recommendation (Dkt. No. 7;
Report), entered by the Honorable Patricia D. Barksdale, United States Magistrate Judge,
on August 9, 2017. In the Report, Judge Barksdale recommends that the Complaint be
dismissed without prejudice, Plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis be
denied, Plaintiff’s motions to amend be denied, and Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of
counsel be denied. See Report at 19-20. On August 23, 2017, with the benefit of the
mailbox rule,1 Plaintiff submitted his Motion of Objection(s) to Defendant’s Report and
Recommendation (Dkt. No. 8; Objection).
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 fact 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

1

See Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988) (filing is accomplished by delivering the document to
prison authorities for delivery to the clerk).

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 review of the Objection, the Court observes that Plaintiff has stated his
general disagreement with the Magistrate Judge’s Report. However, he has not identified
any error in the analysis or the findings. More importantly, the Court is of the view that
the Magistrate Judge’s assessment of Plaintiff’s abilities and the deficiencies of his
unmanageable and almost indecipherable complaint is quite accurate. As such, 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. Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED:
1.

Plaintiff’s

Motion

of

Objection(s)

to

Defendant’s

Report

and

Recommendation (Dkt. No. 8) is OVERRULED.
2.

The Magistrate Judge’s Report & Recommendation (Dkt. No. 7) is
ADOPTED as the opinion of the Court.

3.

Plaintiff’s Complaint (Dkt. No. 1) is DISMISSED as frivolous to the extent
Plaintiff claims the Defendants poisoned or contaminated his food, and
without prejudice to filing a new complaint that complies with the pleading
requirements as to any other claims.

4.

Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Dkt. No. 3) is
DENIED.

-2-

5.

Plaintiff’s Motions for Leave to File an Amended Complaint (Dkt. Nos. 5, 6)
are DENIED.

6.

Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel (Dkt. No. 2) is DENIED.

7.

The Clerk of the Court is directed to terminate all pending motions and
deadlines as moot and close the file.

DONE AND ORDERED in Jacksonville, Florida this 6th day of September, 2017.

ja
Copies to:
Counsel of Record
Leonardo Simpkins
U36009
Florida State Prison
P.O. Box 800
Raiford, FL 32083

-3-