Rolle v. Maceluch et al

Filing 8

ORDER overruling 5 Plaintiff's Objections; adopting 4 Report and Recommendation; denying 2 Motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis/affidavit of indigency filed by Randall Lamont Rolle. Plaintiff's Complaint is dismissed. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close the file. Signed by Judge Marcia Morales Howard on 10/8/2015. (JW)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
OCALA DIVISION

RANDALL LAMONT ROLLE,
Plaintiff,
vs.

Case No. 5:15-cv-285-Oc-34PRL

JOHN MACELUCH, et al.,
Defendants.
_____________________________________/
ORDER

THIS CAUSE is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (Doc. No.
4; Report), entered by the Honorable Philip R. Lammens, United States Magistrate Judge,
on July 10, 2015. In the Report, Judge Lammens recommends that Plaintiff’s construed
motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. No. 2) be denied and that Plaintiff’s Complaint
(Doc. No. 1) be dismissed. See Report at 5. On July 27, 2015, Plaintiff filed objections to
the Report. See Plaintiff’s Objections to the Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 5;
Objections).
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 and for the reasons stated in Judge Lammens’
Report, the Court will overrule the Objections, and accept and adopt the legal and factual
conclusions recommended by the Magistrate Judge.1
Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED:
1.

Plaintiff’s Objections to the Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 5) are

OVERRULED.
2.

The Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 4) is

ADOPTED as the opinion of this Court.
3.

Plaintiff’s construed motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. No. 2) is

DENIED.
4.

1

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

Shortly after filing the Objections, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Leave to Amend (Doc. No. 6) and an Amended
Complaint (Doc. No. 7; Proposed Amended Complaint). In an abundance of caution, before determining
whether to accept the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, the Court has considered whether the
Proposed Amended Complaint would cure the Plaintiff’s pleading deficiencies. Having determined that it
does not, the Court concludes that this action is due to be dismissed. While the Court is of the view that
ordinarily it is best to give a pro se Plaintiff an opportunity to file an amended complaint before dismissing
an action, under the circumstances of this case, the Court agrees that dismissal is appropriate.
2

5.

The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to terminate all deadlines and motions

as moot and close the case.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers, this 8th day of October, 2015.

ja
Copies to:
The Honorable Philip R. Lammens
United States Magistrate Judge
Counsel of Record
Pro Se Party

3