UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION

LAQUIESHA BRYANT and JEREMI WITCHERD, SR.,

Plaintiffs, v. CASE NO. 8:20-cv-2478-WFJ-AEP ANDREW CRIPPEN, et al.,

Defendants. ___________________________/

ORDER Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ applications to proceed in forma pauperis (Dkts. 11, 12) and the amended complaint (Dkt. 10). The magistrate judge issued a thorough and well-reasoned report recommending in forma pauperis status be denied and the case be dismissed without leave to amend the complaint again (Dkt. 14). The time for filing objections has passed. The Court reviews the legal conclusions de novo in the absence of an objection. See LeCroy v. McNeil,

, 556 (11th Cir. 2010) (citation omitted); Cooper-Houston v. S. Ry. Co.,

(11th Cir. 1994). The magistrate judge found no basis for federal jurisdiction alleged in the amended complaint and also acknowledged and determined Plaintiffs’ request to review a state court’s decision concerning child custody proceedings violated the Rooker- Feldman doctrine. Dkt. 10 at 3–4. For the reasons explained in the Report and Recommendation, and in conjunction with an independent examination of the file, the Court rules as follows:

1. The Report and Recommendation (Dkt. 14) is confirmed, approved, and adopted in all respects and is hereby made a part of this Order. 2. Plaintiffs’ motions to proceed in forma pauperis (Dkts. 11, 12) are

denied. 3. Plaintiffs’ amended complaint is dismissed without leave to amend as any further amendment would be futile. 4. The Clerk is directed to close the case.

DONE AND ORDERED in Tampa, Florida, on May 27, 2021. s/William F. Jung WILLIAM F. JUNG UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

COPIES FURNISHED TO: Counsel of Record