Lindberg v. Oaks et al

Filing 31

It is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the R&R (Doc. 29) is ADOPTED, CONFIRMED, and made a part of this Order in its entirety. Plaintiff's Motion (Doc. 23) is DENIED. Plaintiff's appeal is not taken in good faith. The Clerk is DIRECTED to notify the Eleventh Circuit of this Order in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(4). Signed by Judge Roy B. Dalton, Jr. on 5/22/2023. (ALL)

Case 6:21-cv-01417-RBD-DCI Document 31 Filed 05/22/23 Page 1 of 2 PageID 768

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
ORLANDO DIVISION
LENA MARIE LINDBERG,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 6:21-cv-1417-RBD-DCI

v.
KEVIN OAKS; JOE PINSKER;
JAMES ADAMS; RALPH GARCIA;
SHADRICK CARTER; WILL
NEWMAN; LISA GERMAN;
JERROD GERWIG; JOHN BARBERI;
JOHN DOE; and MATHEW
STONEQUIST,
Defendants.
________________________________________
ORDER

Plaintiff filed the pro se Complaint against Defendants. (Doc. 1.) Over a year
after the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s Complaint, she moved to appeal in forma
pauperis (“IFP”). (Doc. 20; Doc. 23 (“Motion”).) On referral, U.S. Magistrate Judge
Daniel C. Irick recommends the Court deny the Motion because the appeal is not
taken in good faith. (Doc. 29 (“R&R”).) The time has passed and there were no
objections, so the Court examines the R&R for clear error only. See Macort v. Prem,
Inc., 208 F. App’x 781, 784 (11th Cir. 2006). Finding none, the R&R is due to be
adopted in its entirety.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:

Case 6:21-cv-01417-RBD-DCI Document 31 Filed 05/22/23 Page 2 of 2 PageID 769

1.

The R&R (Doc. 29) is ADOPTED, CONFIRMED, and made a part of
this Order in its entirety.

2.

Plaintiff’s Motion (Doc. 23) is DENIED. Plaintiff’s appeal is not taken
in good faith.

3.

The Clerk is DIRECTED to notify the Eleventh Circuit of this Order
in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(4).

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers in Orlando, Florida, on May 22, 2023.

2