UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION

VANESSA ROBINSON,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No: 8:24-cv-01659-MSS-LSG

CHAPTERS HEALTH SYSTEMS et al,

Defendant.

ORDER THIS CAUSE comes before the Court for consideration of the Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed in forma pauperis, (DKt. 2), Amemded Complaint, (Dkt. 4), and Motion for Case Status. (Dkt. 6) On December 12, 2024, United States Magistrate Judge Lindsay S. Griffin issued a Report and Recommendation, (Dkt. 8), which recommended (1) denying Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed in forma pauperis, (DKt. 2), (2) dismissing Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint without prejudice, (Dkt. 4), (3) affording Plaintiff leave to file a second amended complaint, and (4) denying as moot Plaintiff’s motion for case status. (Dkt. 6) The Parties have not objected to Judge Griffin’s Report and Recommendation, and the deadline for doing so has passed. Upon consideration of all relevant filings, case law, and being otherwise fully advised, the Court ADOPTS Judge Griffin’s Report and Recommendation. (Dkt. 8)

In the Eleventh Circuit, a district judge may accept, reject, or modify the magistrate judge's report and recommendation after conducting a careful and complete review of the findings and recommendations.

(b)(1); Williams v. Wainwright,

(11th Cir. 1982). A district judge “shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or

recommendations to which objection is made.”

(b)(1)(C). This requires that the district judge “give fresh consideration to those issues to which specific objection has been made by a party.” Jeffrey S. v. State Bd. of Educ.,

, 512 (11th Cir. 1990) (quoting H.R. 1609, 94th Cong. § 2 (1976)). Absent specific objections, there is no requirement that a district judge review factual findings de novo,

Garvey v. Vaughn,

, 779 n.9 (11th Cir. 1993), and the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings and recommendations.

(b)(1)(C). The district judge reviews legal conclusions de novo, even in the absence of an objection. See Cooper-Houston v. Southern Ry.,

(11th Cir. 1994).

Upon consideration of the Report and Recommendation, in conjunction with an independent examination of the file, the Court is of the opinion the Report and Recommendation should be adopted, confirmed, and approved in all respects. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that: 1. The Report and Recommendation, (Dkt. 7), is CONFIRMED and ADOPTED as part of this Order. 2. The Plaintiffs Motion to Proceed in forma pauperis, (Dkt. 2), is DENIED. 3. Plaintiffs Amended Complaint, (Dkt. 4), is DISMISSED without prejudice. Thus, Plaintiff may, if she has a good faith basis for amending this claim, file a second amended complaint addressing the deficiencies noted with respect to her claims. 4. Plaintiff may file a second amended complaint within TWENTY-ONE (21) DAYS of the date of this Order. Failure to file an amended complaint within the time allotted as directed will result in this Order becoming a final judgment and Dismissal of Plaintiff's case With Prejudice. 5. Plaintiff's Motion for Case Status, (Dkt. 6), is DENIED AS MOOT.

DONE and ORDERED in Tampa, Florida, this 28th day of April 2025.

Copies furnished to: ; Counsel of Record nae Sine — Any Unrepresented Person UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE