Smith v. Critelli's Auto Mart, LLC et al

Filing 15

ORDER adopting Report and Recommendation (Doc 12 ). Signed by Judge Roy B. Dalton, Jr. on 10/27/2015. (SN)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
ORLANDO DIVISION

DONTAVIOUS TAY SMITH,

Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 6:15-cv-527-Orl-37KRS

CRITELLI’S AUTO MART, LLC;
NICHOLAS C. CRITELLI; AMSCOT
FINANCIAL, INC.; CREDIT ONE BANK,
N.A.; and TD BANK, N.A.,

Defendants.

ORDER
This cause is before the Court on the following:
1.

Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees
or Costs (Doc. 9), filed April 24, 2015;

2.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Karla R. Spaulding’s Report and Recommendation
(Doc. 12), filed May 5, 2015; and

3.

Plaintiff

Tay’s

Objection[s]

to

[the]

Magistrate’s

Report

and

Recommendation, and Motion for Leave to Appoint Counsel (Doc. 13), filed
May 20, 2015.
In this action, brought pursuant to the Trafficking Victims Protection Act (“TVPA”)
and various criminal statutes, U.S. Magistrate Judge Karla R. Spaulding recommends

that the Court deny Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying
Fees or Costs (Doc. 9 (“Application”)) because: (1) Plaintiff failed to plead adequate facts
to plausibly state a claim under the TVPA; and (2) Plaintiff cannot bring civil claims under
criminal statutes that provide him with no private right of action. (Doc. 12 (“R&R”).) Plaintiff
objects to the R&R. (Doc. 13 (“Objections”).)
When a party objects to a magistrate judge’s findings, the district court must “make
a de novo determination of those portions of the report . . . to which objection is made.”
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The district court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part,
the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” Id. The district court
must consider the record and factual issues based on the record independent of the
magistrate judge’s report. Ernest S. ex rel. Jeffrey S. v. State Bd. of Educ., 896 F.2d 507,
513 (11th Cir. 1990).
Having conducted an independent, de novo review, and upon consideration of the
entire record and Plaintiff’s Objections, the Court agrees with Magistrate Judge
Spaulding’s comprehensive, well-reasoned R&R (Doc. 12).
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:
1.

Plaintiff

Tay’s

Objection[s]

to

[the]

Magistrate’s

Report

and

Recommendation (Doc. 13) are OVERRULED.
2.

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

3.

Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed in District Court without Prepaying Fees or
Costs (Doc. 9) is DENIED.

4.

Plaintiff’s [Amended] Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial (Doc. 10) is

2

DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. The Clerk is DIRECTED to terminate all
pending motions.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers in Orlando, Florida, on October 26, 2015.

Copies:
Pro Se Party

3