PETER BORGESE
v.
SHERIFF T.K. WATERS, ET AL.
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court adopted the Magistrate Judge's recommendation to deny the plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the case.
[1] A party waives the right to challenge on appeal any unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions in a magistrate judge's report and recommendation, and a district court re…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Magistrate Judge recommended denying the plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis and dismissing the case without prejudice. The plain…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse In Forma Pauperis Application cases and more on FLexlaw
THIS CASUE is before this Court on the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 8, Report), entered by the assigned Magistrate Judge, on October 24, 2025. In the Report, the Magistrate Judge recommends that Plaintiffs Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs (Doc. 2) be denied and that this case be dismissed without prejudice. See Report at 1, 5. Plaintiff has failed to file objections to the Report, and the time for doing so has now passed.
This Court "may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). Pursuant to Rule 72, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (Rule(s)), this Court “must determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge's disposition that has been properly objected to.” See Rule 72(b)(3); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). However, a party waives the right to challenge on appeal any unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions. See 11th Cir. R. 3-1.¹ As such, this Court reviews for plain error and only if necessary, in the interests of justice those portions of the Magistrate Judge's findings to which no objection was filed. See id.; see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985) (“It does not appear that Congress intended to require district court review of a magistrate [judge's] factual or legal conclusions, under a de novo or any other standard, when neither party objects to those findings."); Dupree v. Warden, 715 F. 3d 1295, 1304-05 (11th Cir. 2013) (recommending the adoption of what would become 11th Circuit Rule 3-1 so that district courts do not have “to spend significant amounts of time and resources reviewing every issue—whether objected to or not.").
Upon independent review of the file and for the reasons stated in the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, this Court will accept and adopt the legal and factual conclusions recommended by the Magistrate Judge.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED:
1. The Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (Doc. 8) is ADOPTED as the opinion of this Court.
2. Plaintiff's Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs (Doc. 2) is DENIED.
3. This case is DISMISSED without prejudice.
4. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment dismissing this case, terminate all pending motions and deadlines as moot, and close the file.
DONE and ORDERED in Jacksonville, Florida on November 18, 2025.
JORDAN E. PRATT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Copies: Pro Se Party
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (U.S. 1985)
- Dupree v. Warden, Attorney Gen., State of Ala., 715 F.3d 1295 (11th Cir. 2013)