McDowell et al v. State of Florida et al

Filing 8

ORDER adopting 6 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 1 Complaint filed by Rondale McDowell, Leonard E. Tunsil, 2 MOTION for leave to proceed in forma pauperis/affidavit of indigency filed by Rondale McDowell. See Order for details. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate all pending motions and administratively close this case. Signed by Judge Elizabeth A. Kovachevich on 4/8/2015. (rjm)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
RONDALE MCDOWELL and
LEONARD E. TUNSIL,
Plaintiffs,
v.

Case No.: 8:15-CV-0077-T-17MAP

STATE OF FLORIDA et al.,
Defendant.
/
ORDER ADOPTING IN PART THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
This cause is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”)
Magistrate Judge Mark A. Pizzo issued March 19, 2015. (Doc. 6). Magistrate Judge
Pizzo recommended the Court deny Plaintiff Rondale McDowell’s Motion for Leave to
Proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 2), dismiss Plaintiffs’ complaint, and administratively
close this case. (Doc. 6). Plaintiffs filed a response to the R&R. (Doc. 7). For the reasons
stated below, the Court ADOPTS the R&R.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
When a party makes a timely and specific objection to a finding in a report and
recommendation—whether factual or legal in nature—the district court should make a de
novo review of the record with respect to that issue. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); U.S. v.
Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667 (1980); Jeffrey S. v. State Board of Education of State of Georgia,
896 F.2d 507 (11th Cir. 1990). “The district judge may consider arguments not presented
to the magistrate judge” when considering objections. Charlebois-Deubler v. Prudential
Ins. Co. of America, 2013 WL 980260 (M.D. Fla. 2013) (citing Stephens v. Tolbert, 471
F.3d 1173, 1174 (11th Cir. 2006)).

DISCUSSION
The Court has reviewed Plaintiffs’ Response to the R&R, (Doc. 7), and liberally
construes the Response to include the following objections to the R&R: 1) The lack of
financial ability to hire an attorney precludes Plaintiffs from effectively constructing a legal
complaint, response, or argument; 2) Judge Pizzo cannot empathize with Plaintiffs due
to racial inequalities; 3) Judge Pizzo failed to consider all crimes alleged in the
complaint—notably “ignoring” the attempted murder, forgery, and other enumerated
charges; and 4) Judge Pizzo failed to consider the context of the alleged intimidation and
retaliation. (Doc. 7). The Response also discusses the “injustices” Plaintiffs allegedly
endured during the events preceding the Complaint, and alleged unconstitutional and
criminal actions the Defendants perpetuated after the Complaint was filed. (Doc. 7).
The Court has made a de novo review of the record, and upon due consideration,
the Court finds meritless Plaintiffs’ Response and agrees entirely with Magistrate Judge
Pizzo’s findings and recommendations. Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Response is OVERRULED, and the R&R is ADOPTED in full.
Plaintiff Rondale McDowell’s Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED.
Plaintiffs’ Complaint is DISMISSED, and the Clerk of Court is directed to TERMINATE all
pending motions and ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSE this case.
DONE and ORDERED in Chambers, in Tampa, Florida, this 8th day of April, 2015.

Copies to:

All parties and counsel of record
Assigned Magistrate Judge