Bennett v. Alridge
Bennett v. Alridge
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA ORLANDO DIVISION
SHANTELE RENEE BENNETT; and ESTATE OF SHANTELE RENEE BENNETT,
Plaintiffs,
v. Case No. 6:20-cv-2130-Orl-37GJK
DENISE ALRIDGE; and THE CITY OF ORLANDO CLERK OFFICE,
Defendants.
ORDER Plaintiffs moved to proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc. 2 (“IFP Motion”).) On referral, U.S. Magistrate Judge Gregory J. Kelly recommends denying the IFP Motion and dismissing Plaintiffs’ complaint (Doc. 1) without prejudice for failing to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8. (Doc. 5 (“R&R”).) Plaintiffs did not object to the R&R, and the time for doing so has now passed. So the Court has examined the R&R only for clear error. See Wiand v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., No. 8:12-cv-557-T-27EAJ,
2016 WL 355490, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Jan 28, 2016); see also Macort v. Prem, Inc.,
208 F. App’x 781, 784(11th Cir. 2006). Finding none, the R&R is adopted in its entirety. Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED: -1- 1. U.S. Magistrate Judge Gregory J. Kelly’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 5) is ADOPTED, CONFIRMED, and made a part of this Order. 2. Plaintiffs’ Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 2) is DENIED. 3. Plaintiffs’ Complaint (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 4. By Wednesday, December 23, 2020 Plaintiff may file an amended complaint that addresses the deficiencies identified in the R&R (Doc. 5). Failure to do so may result in the closure of this action without further notice. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers in Orlando, Florida, on December 9, 2020.
f] a / rs # - nell ROY B. DALTON JR: United States District Judge
Copies to: -2-
Pro Se Party
-3-
Reference
- Status
- Unknown