Adan v. All
Filing
17
OPINION AND ORDER that Magistrate Judge Janet F. King's Final R&R is ADOPTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Refund is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Signed by Judge William S. Duffey, Jr on 11/19/2014. (anc)
not qualify as a state actor.
II.
DISCUSSION
A.
Legal Standard
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); Williams v.
Wainwright, 681 F.2d 732, 732 (11th Cir. 1982), cert denied, 459 U.S. 1112
(1983). A district judge “shall make a de novo determination of those portions of
the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is
made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). With respect to those findings and
recommendations to which a party has not asserted objections, the district judge
must conduct a plain error review of the record. United States v. Slay, 714 F.2d
1093, 1095 (11th Cir. 1983).
B.
Analysis
Because Plaintiff has not objected to the Magistrate Judge’s finding that his
Complaint be dismissed, the Court reviews the Magistrate Judge’s findings and
recommendations for plain error. See Slay 714 F.2d at 1095. Ҥ 1983 excludes
from its reach merely private conduct, no matter how discriminatory or wrongful.”
Focus on the Family v. Pinellas Suncoast Transit Auth., 344 F.3d 1263, 1277 (11th
2
Cir. 2003) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Generally, a private
actor cannot be sued under § 1983 unless he or she (1) “performs functions
‘traditionally the exclusive prerogative of the [S]tate,’” (2) is “‘coerced or at least
significantly encouraged’” to act by the State, or (3) the State is interdependent on
the private actor to the extent that “‘it was a joint participant in the enterprise.’”
Id. (quoting Willis v. Univ. Health Servs., Inc., 993 F.2d 837, 840 (11th Cir.
1993)). The Magistrate Judge found that Plaintiff failed to allege facts to support
that his mother qualifies as a state actor. The Court finds no plain error in this
finding, and this action is dismissed without prejudice.1
III.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Janet F. King’s Final
1
On October 16, 2014, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Refund $302 taken from his
inmate account. Plaintiff alleges that the Court withdrew this amount without his
knowledge or consent. Throughout this litigation, Plaintiff was warned that he
must either pay the $400 filing fee or submit a financial affidavit seeking leave to
proceed in forma pauperis. Plaintiff has previously indicated to the Court that he
is willing to pay the filing fee. On September 8, 2014, Plaintiff began to pay the
filing fee in monthly installments of $24.00. To date, Plaintiff has paid $72
towards his filing fee. To the extent Plaintiff seeks a refund of $72, the Court has
no statutory authority to grant Plaintiff’s request. Under the Prison Litigation
Reform Act, a prisoner is required to pay all installments of a filing fee until it is
paid in full, and there is no exception for a dismissed lawsuit.
See Holt v. Bengton, 161 F.3d 17 (10th Cir. 1998). The Motion for Refund is
denied.
3
R&R is ADOPTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Refund is
DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE.
SO ORDERED this 19th day of November, 2014.
_______________________________
WILLIAM S. DUFFEY, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
4
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?