McKeithen v. United States Department of Justice

Filing 7

ORDER: McKeithen's objection (Doc. # 6 ) is OVERRULED. Judge Pizzo's Report and Recommendation (Doc. # 5 ) is ACCEPTED. The Complaint (Doc. # 1 ) is DISMISSED and the motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. # 2 ) is DENIED AS MOOT. The Clerk is directed to CLOSE this case. Signed by Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington on 3/9/2017. (DRW)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
GEORGE MCKEITHEN,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 8:17-cv-490-T-33MAP

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE,
Defendant.
______________________________/
ORDER
This matter comes before the Court upon consideration of
United States Magistrate Judge Mark A. Pizzo’s Report and
Recommendation

(Doc.

#

5),

entered

on

March

6,

2017,

recommending that Plaintiff George McKeithen’s motion for
leave to proceed in forma pauperis be denied and the case
dismissed. McKeithen filed an objection on March 9, 2017.
(Doc. # 6).
Discussion
McKeithen filed his Complaint on February 28, 2017, and
on the same day filed his pending motion to proceed in forma
pauperis, which was referred to Judge Pizzo for a report and
recommendation. (Doc. ## 1, 2). The Complaint, which is mostly
an incomplete form provided by the Court to pro se plaintiffs,
states with respect to the claim being brought: “For a

thirteen year period now the department of justice [sic] has
committed 78 un awfu [sic] acts against me and refuses to
protect my right, ‘m [sic] 1 7 mi lon [sic] do ars [sic] for
each vio ation [sic].” (Doc. # 1 at 4). And, that is the
extent of the Complaint.
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).
The Court has conducted a careful and complete review of
the

findings,

reviewed

conclusions,

matters

of

law

and
de

2

recommendations,
novo.

The

Court

and

has

agrees,

notwithstanding McKeithen’s objection, that the Complaint
“does not offer any details about how the DOJ has wronged
him, when these allegedly unlawful acts occurred, and why he
believes these acts harmed him at the rate of 17 million
dollars apiece.” (Doc. # 5 at 4). While the Court must
construe pro se pleadings liberally, even the most liberal
reading of McKeithen’s Complaint fails to come close to
yielding a plausible claim to relief.
Accordingly, it is now
ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED:
(1)

McKeithen’s objection (Doc. # 6) is OVERRULED.

(2)

Judge Pizzo’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. # 5) is
ACCEPTED.

(3)

The Complaint (Doc. # 1) is DISMISSED and the motion
to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. # 2) is DENIED AS
MOOT.

(4)

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

9th day of March, 2017.

3