Love v. Miller et al

Filing 13

OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING the 11 Final Report and Recommendation. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Complaint 1 is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Signed by Judge William S. Duffey, Jr on 5/4/2015. (anc) Modified on 5/5/2015 in order to correct file date (anc).

On November 18, 2014, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Change of Address [8],
which indicated that Plaintiff had been released from incarceration. On November
20, 2014, the Magistrate Judge entered an Order [9] requiring Plaintiff, within
thirty (30) days, to submit a non-prisoner IFP application, and to file an amended
complaint that complied with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
(November 20, 2014, Order, at 2-3).
Plaintiff did not comply with the Magistrate Judge’s November 20, 2014,
Order. On January 8, 2015, the Magistrate Judge recommended that the Court
dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint for failure to comply with the Order. (R&R at 2).
Plaintiff did not file any objections to the R&R.
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

2

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

As Plaintiff has not objected to the Magistrate Judge’s R&R, the Court
reviews the Magistrate Judge’s findings and recommendations for plain error. See
Slay 714 F.2d at 1095. The Magistrate Judge found that Plaintiff failed to comply
with the November 20, 2014, Order, and properly recommended that the Court
dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint. See LR 41.3(A)(2), NDGa. The Court finds no
plain error in Magistrate Judge’s findings and recommendation. See Slay, 714
F.2d at 1095.

3

III.

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Justin S. Anand’s Final

Report and Recommendation [11] is ADOPTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Complaint [1] is
DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

SO ORDERED this 4th day of May, 2015.

_______________________________
WILLIAM S. DUFFEY, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4