Lomax v. Ruvin et al
ORDER Adopting 106 Report and Recommendations. Signed by Judge K. Michael Moore See attached document for full details. (rfr)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case No. 1:09-cv-23293-KMM
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
HARVEY RUVIN, et al.,
ORDER ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
THIS CAUSE came before the Court upon United State Magistrate Judge Lauren F.
Louis’s Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) (ECF No. 106). On April 11, 2023, this Court
referred all pretrial matters to Magistrate Judge Louis. See ECF No. 105. On April 24, 2023,
Magistrate Judge Louis issued the R&R, recommending that this Court DENY pro se Plaintiff
Mattie Lomax’s Application to Proceed in District Court Without Paying Fees or Costs (ECF No.
100) (“Mot.”), which Magistrate Judge Louis construed as a Motion for Leave to Appeal In Forma
Pauperis. See generally R&R. No objections to the R&R were filed, and the time to do so has
now passed. The matter is now ripe for review. As set forth below, the Court ADOPTS the R&R.
The Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or
recommendations made by a magistrate judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Crim. P. 59(b)(3).
The Court “must consider de novo any objection to the magistrate judge’s recommendation.” Fed.
R. Crim. P. 59(b)(3). A de novo review is therefore required if a party files “a proper, specific
objection” to a factual finding contained in the report. Macort v. Prem, Inc., 208 F. App’x 781,
784 (11th Cir. 2006).
Yet when a party has failed to object or has not properly objected to the magistrate judge’s
findings, “the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in
order to accept the recommendation.” See Keaton v. United States, No. 14-21230-CIV, 2015 WL
12780912, at *1 (S.D. Fla. May 4, 2015); see also Lopez v. Berryhill, No. 17-CV-24263, 2019 WL
2254704, at *2 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 26, 2019) (stating that a district judge “evaluate[s] portions of the
R & R not objected to under a clearly erroneous standard of review” (citing Davis v. Apfel, 93 F.
Supp. 2d 1313, 1317 (M.D. Fla. 2000))).
In her Report and Recommendation, Magistrate Judge Louis recommends denying the
Motion. R&R at 1. Namely, Magistrate Judge Louis finds that the Motion fails to state the issues
that Plaintiff intends to present on appeal, as is required by Rule 24 of the Federal Rules of
Appellate Procedure. R&R at 2. And Plaintiff “advances no explanation for her failure to comply
with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a), which generally provides for 30 days to file a notice
of appeal.” Id. at 3. Magistrate Judge Louis finds that the Motion is “procedurally deficient for
failure to comply with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 24(a)(1). Id. This Court agrees.
Accordingly, UPON CONSIDERATION of the Motion, the R&R, the pertinent portions
of the record, and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, it is hereby ORDERED AND
1. Magistrate Judge Louis’s R&R (ECF No. 106) is ADOPTED;
2. Plaintiff’s Motion (ECF No. 100) is DENIED.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this _____
19th day of May 2023.
c: All counsel of record
K. MICHAEL MOORE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?