UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION

DAMON TIMOTHY RASHAAD LARRY, Plaintiff,

v. Case No: 8:22-cv-1259-KKM-AAS MARK OBER, et al, Defendants.

ORDER Plaintiff Damon Timothy Rashaad Larry seeks to proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc. 2; Doc. 16.) The Magistrate Judge took his motion under advisement and directed him to amend his complaint to state a viable cause of action. (Doc. 3.) He did so twice. (Doc. 5; Doc. 14.) The current operative complaint is Larry’s Second Amended Complaint. (Doc. 14.) The Magistrate Judge recommends denying Larry’s request to proceed in forma

pauperis and dismissing his Second Amended Complaint. (Doc. 15.) 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.

(b)(1). Ifa party files a timely and specific objection to a finding of fact by the magistrate judge, the district court must conduct a de novo review

of that factual issue. Stokes v. Singletary,

(11th Cir. 1992). The district court reviews legal conclusions de novo, even in the absence of an objection. See Cooper-Houston v. S. Ry. Co.,

(11th Cir. 1994); Ashworth v. Glades Cnty. Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs,

(M.D. Fla. 2019). In cases like this one where a plaintiff alleges an inability to pay the filing fee, courts

must dismiss the case if the action is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. See

(e)(2). As the Magistrate Judge’s order explains, (Doc. 15), Larry’s Second Amended Complaint—like his first two—does not

pass muster under this standard. Larry filed an objection, arguing among other things that the Magistrate Judge applied an improperly stringent standard of review to his complaint. (Doc. 17.) This argument is meritless. The Magistrate Judge appropriately applied the standard based on § 1915 that applies to actions where a plaintiff seeks to proceed in forma

pauperis. Larry also filed five frivolous motions, none of which alter the analysis or prevent dismissal. (Doc. 19; Doc. 20; Doc. 21; Doc. 22; Doc. 23.) Accordingly, the Court adopts the Magistrate Judge’s report and recommendation and makes it part of this Order for all purposes, (Doc. 15), denies Larry’s motions to proceed in forma pauperis, (Doc. 2; Doc. 16), and dismisses this case without prejudice. See § 1915(e)(2) (“[T]he court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that... the action .. . is frivolous or malicious . . . or fails to state a claim on which relief

may be granted.”). The Clerk is directed to ENTER JUDGMENT in accord with this order, to TERMINATE any pending motions and deadlines, and to CLOSE this case. ORDERED in Tampa, Florida, on July 28, 2022.

jet Mizelle United States District Judge