Barr v. One Touch Direct, LLC et al

Filing 126

ORDER: The Report and Recommendation (Doc. # 121 ) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED. Pro se Plaintiff Alfred Barr's Motion for Permission to Appeal in Forma Pauperis (Doc. # 115 ) is DENIED. See Order for details. Signed by Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington on 9/2/2016. (DRW)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
ALFRED BARR,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 8:15-cv-2391-T-33MAP

ONE TOUCH DIRECT, LLC, et al.,
Defendants.
_____________________________/
ORDER
This matter comes before the Court upon consideration of
United

States

Magistrate

Judge

Mark

A.

Pizzo’s

Report

and

Recommendation (Doc. # 121), filed on August 15, 2016. The time
for filing objections has passed and no objections have been filed.
For the reasons below, the Court accepts and adopts the Report and
Recommendation, and denies pro se Plaintiff Alfred Barr’s Motion
for Permission to Appeal in Forma Pauperis (Doc. # 115).
I.

Background
On June 17, 2016, Barr filed a notice of appeal, indicating

that he is appealing several Orders; namely, the Orders entered at
docket entries 59, 75, 78, 82, 83, 85, 89, 90, and 110.1 (Doc. #
111). As Judge Pizzo observed, “[t]hese rulings either resolve

1

The Court notes that docket entry 110 is the minute entry for
the June 17, 2016, hearing held by Judge Pizzo. The Order denying
Barr’s motions that were the impetus for the hearing is docketed
at entry 112.
1

discovery issues, or deal with miscellaneous pretrial matters, or
dismiss certain parties from the case,” but they did not “end[]
the litigation in any final way . . . .” (Doc. # 121 at 1).
Thereafter,

Barr

filed

the

pending

Motion,

seeking

leave

to

prosecute his appeal in forma pauperis. (Doc. # 115). On August
15, 2016, Judge Pizzo entered his Report and Recommendation, which
recommends that Barr’s Motion should be denied because he is
attempting to take an interlocutory appeal. (Doc. # 121).
II.

Discussion
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).

2

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
ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED:
(1)

The Report and Recommendation (Doc. # 121) is ACCEPTED and
ADOPTED.

(2)

Pro se Plaintiff Alfred Barr’s Motion for Permission to
Appeal in Forma Pauperis (Doc. # 115) is DENIED.
DONE and ORDERED in Chambers in Tampa, Florida, this 2nd

day of September, 2016.

3