Grey v. The Hartford Casualty Insurance Company

Filing 10

ORDER: The Report and Recommendation 9 is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED. Plaintiff's construed amended Motion to Proceed in forma pauperis 7 is DENIED. Plaintiff's Amended Complaint 8 is DISMISSED without leave to amend. The Clerk is directed to Close the Case. See Order for details. Signed by Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington on 1/28/2014. (KAK)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
JUANITA GREY,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 8:13-cv-2826-T-33TGW

HARTFORD CASUALTY INSURANCE CO.,
Defendant.
_________________________________/
ORDER
This matter is before the Court on consideration of
United States Magistrate Judge Thomas G. Wilson’s Report and
Recommendation

(Doc.

#

9),

filed

on

January

7,

2014,

recommending that Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint be dismissed
without leave to amend.
As of this date, there are no objections to the report
and recommendation, and the time for the parties to file such
objections has elapsed.

The Court adopts the Report and

Recommendation as discussed below.
I.

Legal Standard
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).
II.

Discussion
Having conducted a careful and complete evaluation 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.
The Court notes that Grey initiated this action on
November 5, 2013, and on that date filed an affidavit of
indigency seeking leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc. ##
1, 2). The Magistrate Judge evaluated the Complaint and
explained

in

an

initial

Report

and

Recommendation

dated

November 7, 2013, that Grey’s Complaint failed to state a
claim upon which relief could be granted. (Doc. # 4).

The

Magistrate Judge discussed the proper content of a Complaint,
-2-

including jurisdictional allegations, and noted that Grey
“appears to allege a state-law claim and does not include in
her

complaint

allegations

which

establish

diversity

jurisdiction.” (Id. at 2).
On November 26, 2013, this Court adopted the initial
Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge and granted
Grey the opportunity to file an Amended Complaint and amended
motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis by December 27,
2013. (Doc. # 5).
On December 27, 2013, Grey filed an Amended Complaint and
an affidavit of indigency, which the Court construes as an
amended Motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc.
## 7, 8).

As noted, the Magistrate Judge has issued a Report

and Recommendation in which he recommends that the Amended
Complaint be dismissed without leave to amend.

(Doc. # 9).

The Magistrate Judge notes that “[t]he amended complaint . .
. does not remedy the deficiencies identified in the original
complaint. . . . [T]he plaintiff has submitted a rambling
three-page letter that fails to state a cause of action and
includes no jurisdictional allegations or prayer for relief.”
(Id. at 2-3).
Based on the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, to
which Grey has not objected, the Court denies the construed
-3-

amended Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis and
dismisses the Amended Complaint without leave to amend.
Accordingly, it is now
ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED:
(1)

The Report and Recommendation (Doc. # 9) is ACCEPTED and
ADOPTED.

(2)

Plaintiff’s construed amended Motion to Proceed in forma
pauperis (Doc. # 7) is DENIED.

(3)

Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint (Doc. # 8) is DISMISSED
without leave to amend.

(4)

The Clerk is directed to Close the Case.
DONE and ORDERED in Chambers in Tampa, Florida, this 28th

day of January, 2014.

Copies: All Counsel and Parties of Record

-4-