Rolle v. United States Marshals Service

Filing 7

ORDER adopting 5 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS. 5 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis is denied. 6 Objection is overruled. The complaint is dismissed as frivolous. Signed by Chief Judge Anne C. Conway on 7/20/2015. (LAK)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
OCALA DIVISION
RANDALL LAMONT ROLLE,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No: 5:15-cv-192-Oc-22PRL

UNITED STATES MARSHALS
SERVICE,
Defendant.

ORDER
This cause comes before the Court on Plaintiff Randall Lamont Rolle’s (“Rolle”) Objection
(Doc. No. 6) to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (R&R) (Doc. No. 5) that his
Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis (the “IFP Motion”) (Doc. No. 2) be denied and his
case dismissed as frivolous.
District courts review de novo any portion of a magistrate judge’s disposition of a
dispositive motion to which a party has properly objected. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); Ekokotu v.
Fed. Express Corp., 408 F. App’x 331, 336 n.3 (11th Cir. 2011) (per curiam).1 The district judge
may reject, modify, or accept in whole or in part the magistrate judge’s recommended disposition,
among other options. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). De novo review of a magistrate judge’s findings of
fact must be “independent and based upon the record before the court.” LoConte v. Dugger, 847
F.2d 745, 750 (11th Cir. 1988). The district court “need only satisfy itself that there is no clear
error on the face of the record” in order to affirm a portion of the Magistrate Judge’s

1

Unpublished Eleventh Circuit cases are persuasive, but not binding.

recommendation to which there is no timely objection. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s
note (1983).
Rolle’s Complaint is hardly a model of clarity, but its genesis appears to be a search of his
home conducted pursuant to a warrant by a U.S. Marshals Service Task Force in 2002. The R&R
recommended that the IFP Motion be denied because Rolle’s claims are barred by res judicata and
the applicable statute of limitations. Having extensively reviewed the factual allegations and
relevant law in this matter, the Court agrees. Rolle admits that the Eleventh Circuit previously
ruled against him on the same allegations he presents in the instant Complaint. Even if it had not,
Rolle’s claims come nearly ten years too late, as the statute of limitations would have run sometime
in 2006. This action is frivolous, and neither the Complaint nor the Objection suggests that Rolle
has any cognizable claim to relief.
Based on the foregoing, it is ordered as follows:
1.

Plaintiff Randall Lamont Rolle’s Objection (Doc. No. 6) to the Magistrate Judge’s

Report and Recommendation are OVERRULED. The Magistrate Judge’s Report and
Recommendation (Doc. No. 5) is ADOPTED and CONFIRMED and made a part of this Order.
2.

Plaintiff’s construed Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. No. 2)

is DENIED.
3.

Plaintiff’s Complaint (Doc. No. 1) is DISMISSED as frivolous.

4.

All remaining pending Motions are DENIED as moot.

-2-

DONE and ORDERED in Chambers, in Orlando, Florida on July 20, 2015.

Copies furnished to:
Counsel of Record
Unrepresented Parties

-3-