Lindberg v. Lemonidis

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA ORLANDO DIVISION LENA MARIE LINDBERG, Plaintiff, v. Case No. 6:21-cv-1783-RBD-DCI ROBIN C. LEMONIDIS; LORI TODD; F. BARBERI, E.

MCKINNON; DAVID GILLESPIE; OFFICER ANASTASIA; MELANIE GRISWOLD; RENEE PURDEN; JEFFREY M. PEARSON; PETER GAUNTLETT; RICHARD T. WILEY; UNKNOWN; UNKNOWN; PLAMEN NATCHEV; SCOTT CARVER; and SUE FRANK, Defendants. ____________________________________ ORDER Plaintiff filed a pro se Complaint against Defendants. (Doc. 1.) Over a year after the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s Complaint, she moved to appeal in forma pauperis (“IFP”). (Doc. 14; Doc. 16 (“Motion”).) On referral, U.S. Magistrate Judge Daniel C. Irick recommends the Court deny the Motion because the appeal is not taken in good faith. (Doc. 22 (“R&R”).) The time has passed and there were no objections, so the Court examines the R&R for clear error only. See Macort v. Prem, Inc., 208 F. App’x 781, 784 (11th Cir. 2006). Finding none, the R&R is due to be adopted in its entirety.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED: 1. The R&R (Doc. 22) is ADOPTED, CONFIRMED, and made a part of this Order in its entirety.

2. Plaintiff's Motion (Doc. 16) is DENIED. Plaintiff's appeal is not taken in good faith.

3. The Clerk is DIRECTED to notify the Eleventh Circuit of this Order in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(4).

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers in Orlando, Florida, on May 22, 2023.

/] United States District Judge