Brett v. Curtis et al

Filing 9

ORDER: The Report and Recommendation 8 is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED. Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis 4 is DENIED WITH PREJUDICE. Plaintiff's Motion to Appoint Counsel 5 is DENIED. This action is DISMISSED. The Clerk shall CLOSE THIS CASE. Signed by Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington on 4/21/2014. (KAK)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
FRANK BRETT,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 8:14-cv-727-T-33EAJ

U.S. MARSHAL CURTIS, ET AL.,
Defendants.
_____________________________/
ORDER
This matter is before the Court on consideration of the
report and recommendation of Elizabeth A. Jenkins, United
States Magistrate Judge, (Doc. # 8) filed on April 1, 2014,
recommending that Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Proceed in
forma

pauperis

(Doc.

#

4)

be

denied

with

prejudice,

recommending that Plaintiff’s Motion to Appoint Counsel (Doc.
# 5) be denied, and further recommending that this action be
dismissed.
No objections have been filed, and the time for the
submission of objections has expired.
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.

This

Court

specifically adopts the magistrate judge’s finding that “the
complaint is subject to dismissal because it fails to comply
with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and is frivolous.”
(Doc. # 8 at 2).

The Court has construed Plaintiff’s pro se

filings liberally but ultimately determines that this action
is subject to dismissal.
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED:

-2-

(1)

The Report and Recommendation (Doc. # 8) is ACCEPTED and
ADOPTED.

(2)

Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis
(Doc. # 4) is DENIED WITH PREJUDICE.

(3)

Plaintiff’s Motion to Appoint Counsel (Doc. # 5) is
DENIED.

(4)

This action is DISMISSED.

(5)

The Clerk shall CLOSE THIS CASE.
DONE and ORDERED in Chambers in Tampa, Florida, this 21st

day of April, 2014.

Copies:

All Counsel and Parties of Record

-3-