Vereen v. Unnamed Defendant
Filing
8
OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING 6 Final Report and Recommendation ; plaintiff's complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE; DENYING 4 Motion for Writ of Certiorari. Signed by Judge William S. Duffey, Jr on 5/18/2015. (adg)
Plaintiff’s “Complaint” does not appear to contain a request for relief, and it is
unclear whether, in sending the letter, Plaintiff intended to initiate a civil action.
On December 22, 2014, the Magistrate Judge ordered [2] Plaintiff to submit,
within thirty (30) days of the date of the order: (1) a document titled “complaint”
that contains a short and plain statement of his claims, facts supporting his claims,
defendants’ names, and the relief he seeks; and (2) either the $400 filing and
administrative fee or an application to proceed in forma pauperis.
(December 22, 2014, Order, at 1).
On January 14, 2015, Plaintiff filed his Application for Leave to Proceed in
forma pauperis [3] (“IFP Application”) and his Motion, in which Plaintiff appears
to assert that “Publishing Clearing House” wrongfully invested $11 million of
Plaintiff’s money. (Motion at 2). On January 21, 2015, the Magistrate Judge
granted Plaintiff’s IFP Application.
On February 12, 2015, the Magistrate Judge, noting that Plaintiff failed to
file a complaint that complied with the Magistrate Judge’s December 22, 2014,
Order, recommended that the Court dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint without
prejudice. (R&R at 2). Plaintiff did not file any objections to the R&R.
2
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
Plaintiff did not object to the Magistrate Judge’s R&R, the Court thus
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 December 22, 2014, Order, and recommended that the Court dismiss
Plaintiff’s Complaint. See LR 41.3(A)(2), NDGa. The Court finds no plain error
3
in the Magistrate Judge’s findings and recommendation. See Slay, 714 F.2d at
1095.
III.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Linda T. Walker’s Final
Report and Recommendation [6] is ADOPTED
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Complaint [1] is
DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Writ of Certiorari
[9] is DENIED.1
SO ORDERED this 18th day of May, 2015.
_______________________________
WILLIAM S. DUFFEY, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
1
Plaintiff’s Motion, while docketed as a motion, does not seek any specific
relief or request any specific action from the Court.
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?