UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA ORLANDO DIVISION

TERA BROOKE LAU,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No: 6:24-cv-1916-JSS-DCI

STATE OF FLORIDA, SEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, STATE ATTORNEY’S OFFICE FOR THE SEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, VOLUSIA COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE, DAVID H. FOXMAN, CHRISTIAN A. MILLER, SANDRA C. UPCHURCH, CHRISTOPHER FRANCE, LEAH CASE, FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, CHRISTIAN PRESTON, RACHEL STEPHENS, SHANA KELLY CARSON, FLORIDA BAR, EDDIE J. BELL and AND OTHER WRONGDOERS, ET AL,

Defendants. ___________________________________/ ORDER Plaintiff Tera Brooke Lau, proceeding pro se, moves to proceed in forma pauperis (Motion, Dkt. 2). On January 23, 2025, United States Magistrate Judge Daniel C. Irick entered a Report and Recommendation recommending that Plaintiff’s Motion be denied without prejudice, the complaint (Dkt. 1) be dismissed, and Plaintiff be given leave to file an amended complaint. (Dkt. 12 at 5.) Plaintiff has not filed an objection to the Report and Recommendation, and the time to do so has now passed. After conducting a careful and complete review of the findings and recommendations, a district judge “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.”

(b)(1); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72. With respect to non-dispositive matters, the district judge “must consider timely objections and modify or set aside any part of the order that is clearly erroneous or is contrary to law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a); see Jordan v. Comm’r, Miss. Dep’t of Corr.,

(11th Cir. 2020). For dispositive

matters, the district judge must conduct a de novo review of any portion of the report and recommendation to which a timely objection is made.

(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); United States v. Farias-Gonzalez,

, 1184 n.1 (11th Cir. 2009) (“A district court makes a de novo determination of those portions of a magistrate’s report to which objections are filed.”). Even in the absence of a specific

objection, the district judge reviews any legal conclusions de novo. See Cooper-Houston v. S. Ry. Co.,

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

(M.D. Fla. 2019). Upon conducting a careful and complete review of the Magistrate Judge’s findings, conclusions, and recommendations, and giving de novo review to matters of

law, the court adopts the report and recommendation in full. Accordingly: 1. The Report and Recommendation (Dkt. 12) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED. 2. Plaintiff's complaint (Dkt. 1) is DISMISSED. 3. Plaintiffs motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Dkt. 2) is DENIED without prejudice. 4. On or before April 30, 2025, Plaintiff shall file an amended complaint and a renewed motion to proceed in forma pauperis, if she can do so in good faith. Failure to file an amended complaint and a renewed motion to proceed in forma pauperis by the deadline may result in dismissal without further notice. 5. When filing a renewed motion to proceed in forma pauperis, Plaintiff must use the form “Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs (Long Form),” located on the court’s website, www.flmd.uscourts.gov, under the “Forms” tab. ORDERED in Orlando, Florida, on April 10, 2025.

( fa _ a JUVIE S. SNEED UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Copies furnished to: Unrepresented Party

-3-