Barber v. Federal Bureau of Investigation

Filing 13

ORDER denying 9 Motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis/affidavit of indigency; adopting 12 Report and Recommendations. Signed by Judge Roy B. Dalton, Jr. on 7/27/2016. (VMF)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
OCALA DIVISION
TRACY BARBER,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 5:16-cv-139-Oc-37PRL

FEDERAL BUREAU OF
INVESTIGATION; and STATE OF
FLORIDA,
Defendants.
ORDER
This cause is before the Court on the following:
1.

Plaintiff’s Affidavit of Indigency (Doc. 9), filed April 5, 2016;

2.

Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint (Doc. 11), filed June 13, 2016; and

3.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Philip R. Lammens’s Report and Recommendation
(Doc. 12), filed July 5, 2016.

In the instant action, pro se Plaintiff Tracy Barber seeks to proceed in forma
pauperis against the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”) and the State of Florida (“the
State”). (See Doc. 11 (“Complaint”).) Though Plaintiff is currently on his third iteration of
the Complaint, neither the Undersigned nor U.S. Magistrate Judge Philip R. Lammens
has been able to discern the factual basis for Plaintiff’s suit. (See Doc. 12, pp. 5–6.)
Indeed, from a practical standpoint, the Complaint is simply incomprehensible. Moreover,
despite prior instruction from the Court (see Docs. 4, 10), Plaintiff’s Complaint remains
non-compliant with the pleading requirements set forth in the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.

Unsurprisingly, Magistrate Judge Lammens recommends that the Court deny
Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 9) and dismiss the operative
Complaint. (Doc. 12 (“R&R”).) Specifically, the R&R concludes that: (1) the Complaint
fails to comply with Rules 8 and 10 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; (2) the
Complaint “lacks even a simple narrative explaining what allegedly happened to Plaintiff”;
(3) the State is immune from suit; and (4) “it is unclear to what extent—if any—that Plaintiff
can proceed against the FBI.” (Id. at 5–6.) Plaintiff did not object to the R&R, and the time
for filing objections has expired.
Having independently reviewed the R&R for fairness and in the absence of any
objection, the Court agrees with Magistrate Judge Lammens and adopts the R&R in its
entirety. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (suggesting that a de novo review is only required
when a party objects to the proposed findings and recommendations). Even construing
the Complaint liberally, a review of the filings in this action reveals that Plaintiff has made
no meaningful attempt to follow the Court’s directives with respect to his pleading
deficiencies. As such, the Court finds that further amendment would be futile and that the
Complaint is due to be dismissed with prejudice.
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:
1.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Philip R. Lammens’s Report and Recommendation
(Doc. 12) is ADOPTED and CONFIRMED and made a part of this Order.

2.

Plaintiff’s Affidavit of Indigency (Doc. 9), which the Court construes as a
Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis, is DENIED.

3.

Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint (Doc. 11) is DISMISSED WITH
PREJUDICE.

2

4.

The Clerk is DIRECTED to close the file.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers in Orlando, Florida, on July 27, 2016.

Copies:
Counsel of Record

3