Grimes v. Eriksen et al

Filing 15

ORDER denying 11 Motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis/affidavit of indigency; adopting 12 Report and Recommendations. Signed by Judge Roy B. Dalton, Jr. on 3/29/2016. (VMF)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
ORLANDO DIVISION

JEROME L. GRIMES,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 6:16-cv-308-Orl-37DAB

JOHN ERIKSEN; and MANHEIM
AUTOMOBILE AUCTIONS,
Defendants.
ORDER
This cause is before the Court on the following:
1.

Plaintiff’s Affidavit of Indigency (Doc. 11), filed March 16, 2016;

2.

U.S. Magistrate Judge David A. Baker’s Report and Recommendation
(Doc. 12), filed March 18, 2016; and

3.

Plaintiff’s Objections to the March 16, 2016, Report and Recommendations
(Doc. 13), filed March 28, 2016.

On March 18, 2016, Plaintiff filed an Affidavit of Indigency, thereby moving to
proceed in forma pauperis in the instant action. (Doc. 11 (“IFP Motion”).) Upon referral,
U.S. Magistrate Judge David A. Baker issued a Report recommending that the Court:
(1) deny Plaintiff’s IFP Motion on the ground that his Amended Complaint is patently
frivolous; and (2) dismiss Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint with prejudice in light of Plaintiff’s
history of frivolous filings. (Doc. 12 (“R&R”).) Plaintiff timely objected to the R&R (Doc. 13
(“Objections”)) and contemporaneously filed a Second Amended Complaint (Doc. 14). 1

1

As an initial matter, Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint (Doc. 14) was filed

The matter is now ripe for the Court’s consideration.
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 Baker’s
comprehensive, well-reasoned R&R. The Court finds that Plaintiff’s Objections, like his
Amended Compliant, are without merit and, therefore, due to be overruled. Plaintiff is
warned that continued frivolous lawsuits may result in a screening order being placed on
his future filings within this District.
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:
1.

Plaintiff’s Objections to the March 16, 2016, Report and Recommendations
(Doc. 13) are OVERRULED.

2.

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

3.

Plaintiff’s Affidavit of Indigency (Doc. 11), which the Court construes as a
motion to proceed in forma pauperis, is DENIED.

4.

Plaintiff’s

Amended

Complaint

(Doc.

10)

is

DISMISSED

WITH

without Court leave and is, therefore, due to be stricken. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a).

2

PREJUDICE.
5.

The Clerk is DIRECTED to STRIKE Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint
(Doc. 14) and CLOSE the file.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers in Orlando, Florida, on March 29, 2016.

Copies:
Counsel of Record

3