Burgos v. Reese et al

Filing 9

ORDER: Judge Porcelli's Report and Recommendation (Doc. # 8 ) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED. The Amended Complaint (Doc. # 6 ) is DISMISSED and the motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. # 7 ) is DENIED. The Clerk is directed to CLOSE this case. Signed by Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington on 6/20/2017. (DRW)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
MARK ANTONIO BURGOS,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 8:16-cv-3383-T-33AEP

CORPORAL J. REESE, et al.,
Defendants.
______________________________/
ORDER
This matter comes before the Court upon consideration of
United States Magistrate Judge Anthony E. Porcelli’s Report
and Recommendation (Doc. # 8), entered on May 24, 2017,
recommending that Plaintiff Mark Antonio Burgos’s motion for
leave to proceed in forma pauperis be denied and the case
dismissed. Burgos has not filed an objection and the time for
doing

so

has

passed.

The

Court

adopts

the

Report

and

Recommendation, denies Burgos’s motion to proceed in forma
pauperis, and dismisses this action.
Discussion
Burgos filed his Complaint on December 14, 2016, and on
the same day filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis, which was referred to Judge Porcelli for a report
and recommendation. (Doc. ## 1, 2). Judge Porcelli denied

Burgos’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and
directed Burgos to file an amended complaint. (Doc. # 4). On
February 15, 2017, Burgos filed his Amended Complaint and his
pending motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc.
## 6, 7). On May 24, 2017, Judge Porcelli entered the instant
Report and Recommendation. (Doc. # 8). No objections to the
Report and Recommendation have been filed.
After conducting a careful and complete review of the
findings and recommendations, a district judge may accept,
reject

or

modify

Recommendation.

the

28

magistrate

U.S.C.

§

judge’s

636(b)(1);

Report

and

Williams

v.

Wainwright, 681 F.2d 732 (11th Cir. 1982). 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

The Court has conducted a careful and complete review of
the

findings,

conclusions,

and

recommendations,

and

has

reviewed matters of law de novo. The Court accepts and adopts
the Report and Recommendation.
Accordingly, it is now
ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED:
(1)

Judge Porcelli’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. # 8)
is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED.

(2)

The Amended Complaint (Doc. # 6) is DISMISSED and the
motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. # 7) is
DENIED.

(3)

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

20th day of June, 2017.

3