Alexander v. Wells

Filing 4

ORDER adopting 3 Report and Recommendations. Plaintiff's complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. The Clerk is directed to CLOSE this case. Signed by Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle on 11/25/2024. (KMP)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
DOMINIC PIERRE ALEXANDER, 1ST,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 8:24-cv-01405-KKM-AEP

CHARLES R. WELLS,
Defendant.
ORDER
In a November 6, 2024, report (Doc. 3), the United States Magistrate Judge
recommends dismissal of pro se Plaintiff Dominic Alexander’s complaint with
prejudice, and denial of his motion to proceed in forma pauperis. The deadline to
object has passed without an objection.
After conducting a careful and complete review of the findings and
recommendations, a district judge may accept, reject, or modify a magistrate
judge’s Report and Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). If a party files a timely
and specific objection to a finding of fact by a magistrate judge, the district court
must conduct a de novo review of that factual issue. Stokes v. Singletary, 952 F.2d
1567, 1576 (11th Cir. 1992). The district court reviews legal conclusions de novo,
even absent an objection. See Cooper-Houston v. S. Ry. Co., 37 F.3d 603, 604 (11th
Cir. 1994); Ashworth v. Glades Cnty. Bd. of Cnty. Comm’rs, 379 F. Supp. 3d 1244, 1246
(M.D. Fla. 2019).
In the absence of any objection and after reviewing the factual allegations
and legal conclusions, the Court adopts the Report and Recommendation.

Alexander’s complaint does not meet the requirements of Rule 8(a)(2), and his
motion to proceed in forma pauperis is incomplete.
Accordingly, the following is ORDERED:
1.

The Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 3) is
ADOPTED and made a part of this Order for all purposes.

2.

Alexander’s complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

3.

The Clerk is directed to CLOSE this case.

ORDERED in Tampa, Florida, on November 25, 2024.

2