SERGENT
v.
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY
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 without prepayment of fees and ordered the Plaintiff to pay the filing fee within sixty days.
Plaintiff filed an application to proceed in district court without prepaying fees. The Magistrate Judge recommended denying this application and orde…
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 Magistrate Judge'S Report And Recommendation cases and more on FLexlaw
THIS CAUSE is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 7; Report), entered by the Honorable Monte C. Richardson, United States Magistrate Judge, on November 8, 2023. In the Report, Judge Richardson recommends that Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs (Long Form) (Dkt. No. 2; Motion) be denied and that Plaintiff be ordered to pay the filing fee within sixty (60) days of the Court’s Order. See Report at 1, 4. The 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)), the 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, the Court reviews
those portions of the Magistrate Judge’s findings to which no objection was filed for plain error and only if necessary, in the interests of justice. 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 Magistrate Judge=s Report, the Court will accept and adopt the legal and factual conclusions recommended by the
Magistrate Judge. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED: 1. The Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 7) is ADOPTED as the opinion of the Court.
MARCIA MORALES HOWARD
United States District Judge
ja Copies to: Counsel of Record
3.
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)