DUVAL
v.
TRANS UNION INC.
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 motion to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the complaint.
Plaintiff filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis and a complaint. The Magistrate Judge recommended denial of the motion and dismissal of the comp…
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 Report And Recommendation Review cases and more on FLexlaw
Before the Court is Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Dkt. 2) and the United States Magistrate Judge's report recommending that the motion be denied and the complaint (Dkt. 1) be dismissed without prejudice and without leave to amend (Dkt. 4). The time for filing objections has passed.
Absent objection, the Court conducts a "careful and complete" review of the report and recommendation. Williams v. Wainwright, 681 F. 2d 732, 732 (11th Cir. 1982 (per curiam) (quotation citation omitted). “Clear error" review applies to portions of the report and recommendation to which no objection is made. Macort v. Prem, Inc., 208 F. App'x 781, 784 (11th Cir. 2006) (per curiam) (quotation citation omitted). Legal conclusions are reviewed de novo in the absence of an objection. See LeCroy v. McNeil, 397 F. App'x 554, 556 (11th Cir. 2010) (citation omitted); Cooper-Houston v. S. Ry. Co., 37 F. 3d 603, 604 (11th Cir. 1994). The
Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the Magistrate Judge's report and recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Williams, 681 F. 2d at 732.
After reviewing the complaint and the motion to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), United States Magistrate Judge Tuite found the complaint failed both to satisfy procedural pleading requirements and to allege a cognizable cause of action. On April 28, 2025, an order was entered directing Plaintiff Mr. Duval to file an amended complaint by May 26, 2025, or suffer dismissal. No amended complaint has been filed.
After conducting a complete and independent examination of the file, the Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge's thorough analysis and rules as follows:
1. The Report and Recommendation (Dkt. 4) is adopted, confirmed, and approved in all respects and made a part of this order.
2. Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Dkt. 2) is denied.
3. Plaintiff's complaint (Dkt. 1) is dismissed without prejudice.
4. The Clerk is directed to terminate any pending deadlines and close the case.
DONE AND ORDERED at Tampa, Florida, on June17, 2025.
WILLIAM F. JUNG
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
COPIES FURNISHED TO: Plaintiff, pro se
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Marina Cooper-Houston v. S. Ry. Co., 37 F.3d 603 (11th Cir. 1994)
- Williams v. Louie L. Wainwright, 681 F.2d 732 (11th Cir. 1982)