Fabing et al v. Lakeland Regional Medical Center, Inc. et al

Filing 18

ORDER: The Report and Recommendation 17 is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED. Plaintiffs' Motions for leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal 14 , 15 are DENIED. The Court certifies that the appeal is not taken in good faith and directs the Clerk to notify the Court of Appeals of this ruling in accordance with Rule 24(a)(4) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. Signed by Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington on 4/30/2013. (KAK)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
JOHN FABING and MARY FABING,
Plaintiffs,
v.

Case No. 8:12-cv-2624-T-33MAP

LAKELAND REGIONAL MEDICAL
CENTER, ET AL.,
Defendants.
_____________________________/
ORDER
This matter is before the Court on consideration of
United States Magistrate Judge Mark A. Pizzo’s Report and
Recommendation

(Doc.

#

17),

filed

on

April

12,

2013,

recommending that Plaintiffs’ Motions to Proceed on Appeal in
forma pauperis (Doc. # 14, 15), be denied.
Although given a chance to do so, Plaintiffs did not file
an objection to the report and recommendation, and the time
for Plaintiffs to do so has now expired.
Analysis
In the report and recommendation, the magistrate judge
finds that Plaintiffs’ appeal “is not taken in good faith.”
(Doc. # 17 at 2).
the

fact

that

The magistrate judge bases his findings on

“Plaintiffs

have

failed

to

identify

any

colorable basis for appeal or for concluding that the Court’s
order entering judgment in favor of Defendants was in error.”

Id.

Thus, the magistrate judge correctly recommends that the

Motions to Proceed in forma pauperis on appeal be denied.
After conducting a careful and complete review of the
findings and recommendations, a district judge may accept,
reject

or

modify

the

magistrate

judge’s

report

and

recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Williams v. Wainwright,
681 F.2d 732 (11th Cir. 1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1112
(1983).

In the absence of specific objections, there is no

requirement that a district judge review factual findings de
novo, Garvey v. Vaughn, 993 F.2d 776, 779 n.9 (11th Cir.
1993), and the court may accept, reject or modify, in whole or
in part, the findings and recommendations.

28 U.S.C. §

636(b)(1)(C). The district judge reviews legal conclusions de
novo, even in the absence of an objection. See Cooper-Houston
v. S. Ry. Co., 37 F.3d 603, 604 (11th Cir. 1994); Castro
Bobadilla v. Reno, 826 F. Supp. 1428, 1431-32 (S.D. Fla.
1993), aff’d, 28 F.3d 116 (11th Cir. 1994) (Table).
After conducting a careful and complete review of the
findings, conclusions and recommendations, and giving de novo
review to matters of law, the Court accepts the factual
findings and legal conclusions of the magistrate judge and the
recommendation of the magistrate judge.
Accordingly, it is now
-2-

ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED:
(1)

The Report and Recommendation (Doc. # 17) is ACCEPTED and
ADOPTED.

(2)

Plaintiffs’

Motions

for

leave

to

proceed

in

forma

pauperis on appeal (Doc. # 14, 15) are DENIED.
(3)

The Court certifies that the appeal is not taken in good
faith and directs the Clerk to notify the Court of
Appeals of this ruling in accordance with Rule 24(a)(4)
of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.
DONE and ORDERED in Chambers in Tampa, Florida, this 30th

day of April, 2013.

Copies:
All Counsel and Parties of Record

-3-