GREEN
v.
WILKINSON

M.D. Fla. | 2025-02-11
No. 8:24-cv-1182
2025 FFL 3261 District Court, M.D. Florida (2025)

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.


Holding

The court adopted the magistrate judge's recommendation to deny the plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the action with prejudice.


Facts & Procedural History

Pro se plaintiff James Green filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis and a complaint. A magistrate judge recommended denial of the motion and dism…

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.


Opinion of the Court

In a January 22, 2025, report (Doc. 16), the United States Magistrate Judge recommends denial of pro se plaintiff James Green's motion to proceed in forma pauperis and dismissal of this action with prejudice. The deadline to object has passed without an objection.

After conducting a careful and complete review of the findings and recommendations, a district judge may accept, reject, or modify a magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). If a party files a timely and specific objection to a finding of fact by a magistrate judge, the district court must conduct a de novo review of that factual issue. Stokes v. Singletary, 952 F. 2d 1567, 1576 (11th Cir. 1992). The district court reviews legal conclusions de novo, even absent an objection. See Cooper-Houston v.

S. Ry. Co., 37 F. 3d 603, 604 (11th Cir. 1994); Ashworth v. Glades Cnty. Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs, 379 F. Supp. 3d 1244, 1246 (M.D. Fla. 2019).

Absent an objection and after reviewing the factual allegations and legal conclusions, the Court adopts the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation. Green's claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 are all barred by Florida's four-year statute of limitations on such claims. See § 95.11(3)(o), Fla. Stat.; see also Chappell v. Rich, 340 F. 3d 1279, 1283 (11th Cir. 2003) (per curiam). As a result, Green fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. This means that Green's motion to proceed in forma pauperis must be denied and that his complaint must be dismissed. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Finally, although a plaintiff is ordinarily afforded a chance to amend his complaint, the deficiencies in Green's complaint are not "curable." Woldeab v. Dekalb Cnty. Bd. of Educ., 885 F. 3d 1289, 1291 (11th Cir. 2018). Even with a “more carefully drafted complaint," Green could not state a § 1983 claim because Green cannot plausibly allege that Florida's statute of limitations does not bar his claims. Id.

Accordingly, the following is ORDERED:

1. The Magistrate Judge's Report & Recommendation (Doc. 16) is ADOPTED and made a part of this order for all purposes.

2. Green's Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis (Doc. 2) is DENIED.

3. Green's action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

4. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment, which shall read “This case is dismissed with prejudice."

5. The Clerk is directed to CLOSE this case and mail Green a copy of this Order.

ORDERED in Tampa, Florida, on February 11, 2025.

Kathryn Kimball Mizelle United States District Judge


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw