Hochstadt v. Broward County Sheriff's Office et al

Filing 8

ORDER adopting 7 Report and Recommendations. Closing Case. Signed by Judge Darrin P. Gayles on 4/28/2016. (zvr) NOTICE: If there are sealed documents in this case, they may be unsealed after 1 year or as directed by Court Order, unless they have been designated to be permanently sealed. See Local Rule 5.4 and Administrative Order 2014-69.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case No. 16-60646-CIV-GAYLES/WHITE
ANDREW HOCHSTADT,
Plaintiff,
v.
SCOTT ISRAEL, et al.,
Defendants.
/
ORDER AFFIRMING AND ADOPTING REPORT OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE
THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on Magistrate Judge Patrick A. White’s Report re:
Dismissal of Complaint—28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) and Denial of IFP Motion (the “Report”) [ECF
No. 7] entered on March 31, 2016. Plaintiff Andrew Hochstadt filed a Complaint against Defendants Scott Israel, as Broward County Sheriff, and the Broward County Commissioners on March
28, 2016 [ECF No. 1]. The matter was referred to Judge White, pursuant to Administrative Order
2003-19 of this Court, for a ruling on all pretrial, nondispositive matters, and for a Report and
Recommendation on any dispositive matters. [ECF No. 3].
Judge White’s Report recommends that the Court deny the Plaintiff’s motion to proceed
in forma pauperis and dismiss this action because his Complaint runs afoul of the “three strikes”
provision of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), which bars a prisoner from bringing civil actions under 28
U.S.C. § 1915 if he has, on three or more prior occasions, while incarcerated or detained in any
facility, brought an action or appeal in a court of the United States that was dismissed on the
grounds that it was frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted,
unless the prisoner is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. Judge White noted that
the Plaintiff has previously filed four cases in this District, each of which was dismissed in a
manner that qualifies as a “strike” under the statute, and determined that the Plaintiff is not entitled

to proceed under the “imminent danger” exception, as he has made no factual allegations to
support a finding that he was in imminent danger of serious injury at the time of filing. Objections
to the Report were due by April 18, 2016. To date, no objections have been filed.
A district court may accept, reject, or modify a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Those portions of the report and recommendation to which objection is made are accorded de novo review, if those objections “pinpoint the specific findings that
the party disagrees with.” United States v. Schultz, 565 F.3d 1353, 1360 (11th Cir. 2009); see also
Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). If no objections are filed, the district court need only review the report and
recommendation for “clear error.” Macort v. Prem, Inc., 208 F. App’x 781, 784 (11th Cir. 2006)
(per curiam); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note. The Court has undertaken
this review and has found no clear error in the analysis and recommendations stated in the Report.
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Report [ECF No. 7] is AFFIRMED AND
ADOPTED and incorporated into this Order by reference.
The Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis [ECF No. 4] is DENIED.
The Plaintiff’s Complaint [ECF No. 1] is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
This case is CLOSED.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this 28th day of April, 2016.

________________________________
DARRIN P. GAYLES
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE