UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA ORLANDO DIVISION

ADAM JOSHUA MACKER,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No: 6:23-cv-1963-JSS-DCI

MESHELLE NAYLOR, JASON STICKLES, MICHAEL CHITWOOD, DEPUTY IGO, BRANDON KING, and PERDUE, BRANDON, FIELDER, COLLINS & MOTT, LLP,

Defendants. ___________________________________/ ORDER Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, moves to appeal in forma pauperis. (Dkt. 162.) The magistrate judge assigned to this case recommends denying the motion, certifying that the appeal is not taken in good faith, and directing the Clerk to notify the Eleventh Circuit in accordance with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 24(a)(4). (Dkt. 164.) No party has filed objections to the recommendation, and the time to do so has passed. Upon consideration, the court adopts the recommendation in full. After conducting a careful and complete review of the findings and recommendations made by a magistrate judge, a district judge “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations.”

(b)(1); accord Fed. R. Civ. P. 72. A party must serve and file written objections to a magistrate judge’s recommendation within fourteen days of being served with a copy of it,

(b)(1)(C), and the failure to object in a timely fashion “waives the right to challenge on appeal the district court’s order based on unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions,” 11th Cir. R. 3-1. With respect to dispositive matters, the district judge

must conduct a de novo review of any portion of the 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. Cooper-Houston v. S. Ry. Co.,

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

(M.D. Fla. 2019). Here, upon conducting a careful and complete review of the magistrate judge’s

recommendation and giving de novo review to matters of law, the court agrees with the recommendation. Accordingly: 1. The magistrate judge’s recommendation (Dkt. 164) is ADOPTED. 2. Plaintiff’s pro se motion to appeal in forma pauperis (Dkt. 162) is DENIED.

3. The court certifies that Plaintiff’s appeal is not taken in good faith. 4. The Clerk is DIRECTED to notify the Eleventh Circuit of this order in accordance with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 24(a)(4) and to send a copy of this order to Plaintiff by regular and certified mail. ORDERED in Orlando, Florida, on August 28, 2025.

. —_ JUKIE S. SNEED NITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Copies furnished to: Unrepresented Parties Counsel of Record

-3-