Walters v. State of California

United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida

Walters v. State of California

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JACKSONVILLE DIVISION

BRYAN WALTERS,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 3:22-cv-320-MMH-JBT

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al.,

Defendants. _____________________________________/

O R D E R

THIS CAUSE is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 18; Report), entered by the Honorable Joel B. Toomey, United States Magistrate Judge, on May 18, 2022. In the Report, Judge Toomey recommends that Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs (Long Form) (Dkt. No. 2; Motion) be denied and that this case be dismissed. See Report at 1, 5. The Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the finding or recommendations by the magistrate judge.”

28 U.S.C. § 636

(b). If no specific objections to findings of facts are filed, the district court is not required to conduct a de novo review of those findings. See Garvey v. Vaughn,

993 F.2d 776

, 779 n.9 (11th Cir. 1993); see also

28 U.S.C. § 636

(b)(1). However, the district court must review legal conclusions de novo. See Cooper-Houston v. Southern Ry. Co.,

37 F.3d 603, 604

(11th Cir. 1994); United States v. Rice, No.

2:07-mc-8-FtM-29SPC,

2007 WL 1428615

, at *1 (M.D. Fla. May 14, 2007). On May 19, 2022, Plaintiff filed a motion to appeal the Magistrate Judge’s decision, which this Court construes as an objection to the Report. See Motion to Appeal (Dkt. No. 20; Objection). After careful consideration, the

Court finds that the Objection is due to be overruled. Upon independent review of the file and for the reasons stated in the Magistrate Judge’s Report, the Court will overrule the Objection and accept and adopt the legal and factual conclusions recommended by the Magistrate

Judge. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED: 1. Plaintiff’s Motion to Appeal (Dkt. No. 20), which this Court construes as an objection to the Report, is OVERRULED.

2. The Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 18) is ADOPTED as the opinion of the Court. 3. Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs (Long Form) (Dkt. No. 2) is DENIED.

4. This case is DISMISSED. 5. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate all pending motions and deadlines as moot and close the file. DONE AND ORDERED in Jacksonville, Florida, this 26th day of May, 2022.

MARCIA MORALES HOWARD United States District Judge

ja Copies to: Counsel of Record Pro Se Party

3.

Reference

Status
Unknown