SHARP
v.
DOLAN
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 and Recommendation, denying the plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis and dismissing the complaint with prejudice.
Plaintiff filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis and a complaint. The Magistrate Judge recommended denying the motion and dismissing the complain…
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 Frivolous Or Malicious Actions cases and more on FLexlaw
The Magistrate Judge filed a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) in this matter on July 26, 2023 (Doc. 11) recommending that Plaintiff Daryl Sharp’s Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis (Doc. 2) be DENIED and that Mr. Barnette’s Complaint (Doc. 1) be DISMISSED with prejudice. Specifically, the Magistrate Judge recommends that the Court not authorize Mr. Sharp to file his lawsuit without prepayment of fees because Mr. Sharp’s action “is frivolous or malicious” and “fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted,” thereby permitting dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)–(ii). (Doc. 11 at 2–4).
The Magistrate Judge recommends that Mr. Sharp’s Complaint be dismissed with prejudice because “given Plaintiff’s allegations and history of filing similar complaints, Plaintiff could not state a valid, nonfrivolous claim for relief that is plausible on its face if given the opportunity to amend. An amendment of the complaint would prove futile.” (Id. at 5).
No objections have been filed, and the time to do so has expired.1 A district judge may accept, reject, or modify a Magistrate Judge’s Report and
Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The factual findings in a Report and Recommendation need not be reviewed de novo in the absence of an objection, but legal conclusions are always reviewed de novo. Id.; Cooper-Houston v. Southern Ry. Co., 37 F. 3d 603, 604 (11th Cir. 1994); Garvey v. Vaughn, 993 F. 2d 776, 779 n.9 (11th Cir. 1993). After an independent review of the record—and noting that no objections
have been filed—the Court agrees with the well-reasoned Report and Recommendation and DENIES Mr. Sharp’s Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis and DISMISSES with prejudice Mr. Sharp’s Complaint. Consistent with the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation, the Court will not permit Mr. Sharp to amend his Complaint because “[a] district court need not . . . allow an amendment . . . where amendment would be futile.” Bryant. v. Dupree, 252 F. 3d 1161, 1163 (11th Cir. 2001). As the Eleventh Circuit has explained, where a plaintiff fails “to allege
any fact that could potentially lead to liability under any of the statutes on which [he] relies, the district court d[oes] not abuse its discretion in finding [the plaintiff’s]
Accordingly, itis ORDERED: 1. The Report and Recommendation (Doc. 11) is ADOPTED.
2. Mr. Sharp’s Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 2) is DENIED.
3. Mr. Sharp’s Complaint (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED with prejudice.
4. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to terminate all pending deadlines and close the case. ORDERED at Tampa, Florida on August 11, 2023.
/, A1 ,
JOHN L. BADALAMENTI
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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)
- Garvey v. Vaughn, 993 F.2d 776 (11th Cir. 1993)
- Bryant v. Dupree, 252 F.3d 1161 (11th Cir. 2001)