THOMAS

v.

FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAY SAFETY AND MOTOR VEHICLES

Plaintiff Noel Vincent Thomas filed a complaint against three defendants on July 15, 2022. (Doc. 1.) At the same time, he moved to proceed in forma pauperis and for the Court to appoint counsel. (Doc. 2; Doc. 3.) After reviewing his application to proceed without paying filing fees and his complaint, the United States Magistrate Judge took his motion to proceed in forma pauperis under advisement because his complaint failed to state a claim for relief and denied his motion to appoint counsel. (Doc. 4.) The Magistrate Judge gave him leave to file an amended complaint that states a viable cause for action. (Id.) On August 18, 2022, the Magistrate Judge entered a Report and Recommendation, recommending that Thomas’s Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 2) be denied and his Amended Complaint (Doc. 6) be dismissed for a variety of reasons. (Doc. 7.) Thomas then filed an objection to the Report and Recommendation. (Doc. 8.) Considering the record, the Court adopts the Report and Recommendation for the reasons stated therein (Doc. 7); denies Thomas’s Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 2); and dismisses Thomas’s amended complaint (Doc. 6).

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 with respect to that factual issue. Stokes v. Singletary, 952 F. 2d 1567, 1576 (11th Cir. 1992).

The district court reviews legal conclusions de novo, even in the absence of 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). Thomas’s objection to the Magistrate Judge’s Report is mostly perfunctory and fails to identify specific flaws in the Magistrate Judge’s Report. He asserts that “the sole purpose of the Magistrate Judge is to force Plaintiff to remove the bulk of the factual information from his complaint,” that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 does not have “anything to do with the structure, the length, or the factual contents of the entirety of the complaint,” and that the recommendation “is a violation of Plaintiff’s First Amendment right.” He also uses the objection to reallege many of the factual allegations in his complaint.

Nevertheless, after carefully reviewing the record and the conclusions in the Report and Recommendation, the Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge. As the Magistrate Judge explains, Thomas’s Amended Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. While Thomas thoroughly details his factual assertions, his legal claims are unclear, vague, and conclusory.

Additionally, he fails to provide

a basis by which the Court has jurisdiction to hear his case. Therefore, his case is due to be dismissed under 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2). Accordingly, the following is ORDERED: 1. The Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 7) is ADOPTED and made part of this Order for all purposes. 2. Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 2) is DENIED. 3. Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice.

4. The Clerk is directed to TERMINATE any pending deadlines and CLOSE this case. DONE AND ORDERED at Tampa, Florida, on September 8, 2020.

/s/ William F. Jung

WILLIAM F. JUNG

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

COPIES FURNISHED TO: Counsel of Record