Lehet v. US Dept of Veteran Affairs

Filing 19

ORDER: The Report and Recommendation of the Honorable Elizabeth A. Jenkins, United States Magistrate Judge 15 is ADOPTED. Plaintiff Andrew Thomas Lehet's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis 14 is DENIED. Plaintiff's Amended Complaint 12 is DISMISSED for failure to state a claim. The Clerk is directed to close this case. Signed by Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington on 12/1/2014. (KNC)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
ANDREW THOMAS LEHET,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 8:14-cv-1937-T-33EAJ

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS
AFFAIRS,
Defendant.
________________________________/
ORDER
This cause comes before the Court pursuant to the October
30,

2014,

Report

and

Recommendation

of

the

Honorable

Elizabeth A. Jenkins, United States Magistrate Judge (Doc. #
15), in which Judge Jenkins recommends that Plaintiff Andrew
Thomas Lehet’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. #
14), be denied and further recommends that Lehet’s amended
complaint (Doc. # 12) be dismissed for failure to state a
claim.
On

November

12,

2014,

this

Court

granted

Lehet’s

Emergency Application for Extension of Time to File Response
to Report and Recommendation. (See Doc. ## 16-17). As a
result, Lehet had until and including November 28, 2014, to
file a response to the Report and Recommendation. (Doc. #

17). On November 26, 2014, Lehet filed an objection to the
Report

and

Recommendation.

(Doc.

#

18).

After

due

consideration, the Court overrules Lehet’s objection and
adopts the Report and Recommendation of Judge Jenkins.
Discussion
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).
Upon due consideration of the entire record, the Court
overrules

Lehet’s

objection

and

adopts

the

Report

and

Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. The Court agrees with
Judge Jenkins’ detailed and well-reasoned findings of fact
2

and

conclusions

of

law.

The

Report

and

Recommendation

thoughtfully addresses the issues presented and the objection
does

not

provide

a

basis

for

rejecting

the

Report

and

Recommendation.
Accordingly, it is now
ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED:
(1)

The Report and Recommendation of the Honorable Elizabeth
A. Jenkins, United States Magistrate Judge (Doc. # 15)
is ADOPTED.

(2)

Plaintiff Andrew Thomas Lehet’s motion for leave to
proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. # 14) is DENIED.

(3)

Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint (Doc. # 12) is DISMISSED
for failure to state a claim.

(4)

The Clerk is directed to close this case.
DONE and ORDERED in Chambers in Tampa, Florida, this 1st

day of December, 2014.

Copies:

All Parties of Record

3