LEACH
v.
HOFFMAN
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 report, denying the plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis and dismissing the complaint with prejudice.
Plaintiff filed a pro se motion to proceed in forma pauperis and a complaint. The magistrate judge recommended denial and dismissal with prejudice. Pl…
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 Proceed In Forma Pauperis cases and more on FLexlaw
Before the Court is Plaintiff James R. Leach's pro se 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 with prejudice. Dkt. 3. In response, Plaintiff filed several papers: an Amended Complaint, another motion to proceed in forma pauperis, and a motion for leave to file evidence. The time for filing objections has passed.
When a party makes timely and specific objections to the report and recommendation of the magistrate judge, the district judge shall conduct a de novo review of the portions of the record to which objection is made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); Jeffrey S. State Bd. of Educ. of State of Ga., 896 F. 2d 507, 512 (11th Cir. 1990). After such independent review, the Court may accept, reject, or modify the magistrate judge's report and recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); Macort v. Prem., Inc., 208 F. App'x 781, 783-84 (11th Cir. 2006) (citing published opinion).
The Magistrate Judge, in a thorough and well-reasoned analysis, found that the Complaint (Dkt. 1) fails to satisfy basic pleading requirements in its factual or legal allegations, is unsigned, and is barred by res judicata. Dkt. 3. Having conducted a de novo and independent review of the file, and for the sound reasons explained in the Report and Recommendation, the Court rules as follows:
1. Plaintiff's filings (Dkts. 4, 5, 6), to the extent they may be considered objections, are overruled.
2. The Report and Recommendation (Dkt. 3) is adopted, confirmed, and approved in all respects and made a part of this order.
3. Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Dkt. 2) is denied. Plaintiff's Complaint (Dkt. 1) is dismissed with prejudice.
4. The Clerk is directed to terminate any pending motions and to close the case.
DONE and ORDERED in Tampa, Florida on May 12, 2025.
s/William F. Jung
WILLIAM F. JUNG
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Copies furnished to: Plaintiff, pro se
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Ga. Power Co. v. Int'l Bhd. OF Elec. Workers, 896 F.2d 507 (11th Cir. 1990)