UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION

NOEL VINCENT THOMAS, Plaintiff,

v. Case No: 8:22-cv-1610-KKM-AAS FLORIDA DEPARTMENT of HIGHWAY SAFETY & MOTOR VEHICLES, et al., Defendants.

ORDER Plaintiff Noel Vincent Thomas moves to appeal the Court’s order dismissing his

case with prejudice, (Doc. 9), in forma pauperis. (Doc. 12.) For the reasons explained in the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 13), his motion to appeal in forma pauperis is denied. 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 a magistrate judge, the district court must conduct a de novo review with respect to 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). Here, Thomas provides no reason that the Court’s dismissal of his case erred. And like his objection to the Magistrate Judge’s Report recommending dismissal of his petition, his objection here, (Doc. 14), does not identify any specific flaws in the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation that IFP be denied here. Therefore, he fails to establish that his appeal is taken in good faith as required by

(a)(3). Accordingly, the following is ORDERED:

1. The Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 13) is ADOPTED and made part of this Order for all purposes. 2. Plaintiffs Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 12) is DENIED. DONE AND ORDERED at Tampa, Florida, on October 5, 2022.

/s/ William F. Jung WILLIAM F. JUNG UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

COPIES FURNISHED TO: Counsel of Record