Siler v. Lawler

Filing 29

ORDER Adopting 25 Report and Recommendations. Closing Case. Signed by Judge Darrin P. Gayles (hs01) 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. 17-20540-CIV-GAYLES/WHITE
RICHARD SILER,
Plaintiff,
v.
AGENT TIMOTHY LAWLER, et al.
Defendants.
/

ORDER AFFIRMING AND ADOPTING REPORT OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE
THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on the Preliminary Report of Magistrate Judge
[ECF No. 25]. Plaintiff filed a pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging violations of due process and prosecutorial misconduct [ECF No. 1]. The matter was referred to
Judge White, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Administrative Order 2003-19 of this
Court, for a ruling on all pretrial, non-dispositive matters, and for a Report and Recommendation
on any dispositive matters. [ECF No. 3]. Following an initial screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915,
Judge White recommended that the Court dismiss the complaint in its entirety as frivolous, malicious, and failing to state a claim as it is barred by the doctrine of Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S.
477, 483-489 (1994). Although he filed two motions for discovery prior to Magistrate Judge
White’s Report, Plaintiff has failed to timely object to the Report.
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). Any portions of the report and recommendation to which no specific objection
is made are reviewed only for clear error. Liberty Am. Ins. Grp., Inc. v. WestPoint Underwriters,
L.L.C., 199 F. Supp. 2d 1271, 1276 (M.D. Fla. 2001); accord Macort v. Prem, Inc., 208 F. App’x
781, 784 (11th Cir. 2006).
This Court finds no clear error with Judge White’s well-reasoned analysis and agrees
that the matter must be dismissed.
Accordingly, after careful consideration, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
(1)

Judge White’s Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 25] is AFFIRMED AND
ADOPTED and incorporated into this Order by reference;

(2)

Plaintiff’s Complaint is DISMISSED without leave to amend pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915A (b) (1), as frivolous, malicious, and failing to state a claim upon
which relief may be granted.

(3)

This action is CLOSED.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this 29th day of June, 2017.

________________________________
DARRIN P. GAYLES
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2