Monroe v. Broward County State Attorneys Office et al

Filing 12

ORDER adopting 10 Report and Recommendations; dismissing 1 Complaint. Closing Case. Signed by Judge Darrin P. Gayles on 6/7/2017. (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. 17-cv-60936-GAYLES/WHITE
DONNIE BURNELL MONROE,
Plaintiff,
v.
BROWARD COUNTY STATE
ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, et al.,
Defendants.
/
ORDER AFFIRMING AND ADOPTING REPORT OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE
THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on Magistrate Judge Patrick A. White’s Amended
Report of Magistrate Judge [ECF No. 10], entered on May 19, 2017. Plaintiff Donnie Burnell Monroe, who appears in this action pro se, filed a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983
on May 11, 2017, against the Broward County State Attorney’s Office, Broward County State
Attorney Michael Satz, and Assistant State Attorney Jonathan Goodman. [ECF No. 1]. The matter
was referred to Judge White for a ruling on all pretrial, nondispositive matters, and for a Report
and Recommendation on any dispositive matters. [ECF No. 3]. The Plaintiff filed a motion for
leave to proceed in forma pauperis [ECF No. 4], which Judge White granted on May 12, 2017
[ECF No. 5].
Judge White’s Report recommends that this Court, upon initial screening mandated by the
in forma pauperis provisions of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1915, dismiss the
Plaintiff’s Complaint in its entirety as frivolous, for failure to state a claim upon which relief can
be granted, and for seeking monetary relief against immune parties, and under 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(e)
for failure to allege physical injury. Objections to the Report were due June 2, 2017. 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. 11] is AFFIRMED AND
ADOPTED and incorporated into this Order by reference. The Plaintiff’s Complaint [ECF No. 1]
is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. If the Plaintiff wishes to amend his complaint, he
may file a motion seeking the Court’s leave to do so.
This action is CLOSED.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this 7th day of June, 2017.

________________________________
DARRIN P. GAYLES
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE