Lopez v. United States of America
ORDER adopting 7 Report and Recommendations.; denying 2 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis. Signed by Judge Roy B. Dalton, Jr. on 8/8/2017. (VMF)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
RODOLFO ANTONIO LOPEZ, JR.,
Case No. 6:17-cv-1107-Orl-37TBS
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
On June 16, 2017, pro se Plaintiff Rodolfo Antonio Lopez, Jr. filed a Complaint
against the United States of America. (Doc. 1.) The Complaint states that Plaintiff does
not seek any damages or relief but, rather, “seeks understanding of a long[-]term illegal
and secretive conspiracy” under which he “has been forced under the control of the
United States Government on all levels.” (Id. at. 4.) As compensation, Plaintiff requests
review of: (1) the “forced control in the hostile take over [sic] of the Kingdom of Hawaii
in 1898”; and (2) “the monetary exchange between [the] United States of America and the
Russian Empire for the purchase of Alaska in 1867.” (Id. at 4–5.)
Alongside the Complaint, Plaintiff also filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis
(Doc. 2 (“IFP Motion”)), which the Court referred to U.S. Magistrate Judge Thomas
B. Smith for a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”). Before entering an R&R, Magistrate
Judge Smith issued an Order finding that: (1) the Complaint was frivolous as a matter of
law; (2) Plaintiff’s admission that he was not seeking any damages or relief meant that
there was no case or controversy for the Court to adjudicate; and (3) Plaintiff failed to
plead a plausible or cognizable cause of action (“Initial Findings”). (Doc. 3, p. 4.)
Nonetheless, the magistrate graciously granted Plaintiff twenty-one days to amend his
Complaint and deferred ruling on the IFP Motion until such time. (Id. at 1, 5.) The Order
warned that if Plaintiff failed to amend his papers within this timeframe, Magistrate
Judge Smith would recommend that the case be dismissed based on the Initial Findings.
Plaintiff never amended his Complaint. Hence, on July 12, 2017, Magistrate Judge
Smith issued an R&R recommending that the Court deny the IFP Motion and dismiss the
Complaint without leave to amend. (Doc. 7.)
Plaintiff’s objections to the R&R were due on or before July 31, 2017. However, on
this date, the R&R was returned to the Court as undeliverable. Obviously then, no
objections were filed. But while Plaintiff may not have seen the R&R, he is to blame for
his failure to receive it, as he failed to provide the Court with an updated address as
required by the District’s Administrative Procedures and the certification signed by
Plaintiff in the Complaint. See Administrative Procedures for Electronic Filing, Part II.D
(M.D. Fla. June 5, 2015) (“All attorneys and pro se litigants must maintain current
information in CM/ECF including name, email address, mailing address, telephone
number, fax number, and where applicable, firm name or affiliation. . . . Pro se litigants
who are not authorized to file electronically must submit a ‘Notice of Change of Address’
in paper format.”); see also (Doc. 1, p. 5) (“I agree to provide the Clerk’s Office with any
changes to my address where case-related papers may be served. I understand that my
failure to keep a current address on file with the Clerk’s Office may result in the dismissal
of my case.”); cf. FHL, Inc. v. Walker, No. 2:13-cv-555-MHT, 2016 WL 868225, at *2
(M.D. Ala. Mar. 7, 2016) (granting a motion for the entry of default judgment where the
plaintiff failed to provide the court or opposing counsel with an updated address for
In any event, the magistrate’s Order containing his Initial Findings and directing
Plaintiff to amend the Complaint was not returned to the Court. As such, the Court
concludes that it was received and ignored. 1 So, consistent with Magistrate Judge Smith’s
initial warning, and based on the obvious frivolity of the Complaint, the Court will adopt
the R&R in its entirety.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
U.S. Magistrate Judge Thomas B. Smith’s Report and Recommendation
dated July 12, 2017 (Doc. 7) is ADOPTED, CONFIRMED, and made a part
of this Order.
Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed in District Court without Prepaying Fees
or Costs (Doc. 2) is DENIED.
Plaintiff’s Complaint (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
also failed to timely respond to the Court’s Related Case Order (Doc. 4)
and Interested Persons Order (Doc. 5). Neither of these Orders were returned as
The Clerk is DIRECTED to close the file and terminate any pending
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers in Orlando, Florida, on August 8, 2017.
Counsel of Record
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?