BANKS
v.
POMPEO
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 affidavit of indigency and dismiss the action.
Plaintiff filed a document construed as a complaint and an affidavit of indigency. The Magistrate Judge found the complaint wholly insubstantial, unin…
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 Affidavit Of Indigency cases and more on FLexlaw
This matter is before the Court on consideration of the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. #11), filed December 11, 2019, recommending that plaintiff’s Affidavit of Indigency (Doc. #2) be denied, and the action be dismissed. Plaintiff filed a document in response (Doc. #12) on December 20, 2019, which is construed as his objections. After conducting a careful and complete review of the findings and recommendations, a district judge may accept, reject or modify the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); United States v. Powell, 628 F. 3d 1254, 1256 (11th Cir. 2010).
A district judge “shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
See also United States v. Farias-Gonzalez, 556 F. 3d 1181, 1184 n.1 (11th Cir. 2009).
This requires that the district judge “give fresh consideration to those issues to which specific
objection has been made by a party.” Jeffrey S. v. State Bd. of Educ. of Ga., 896 F. 2d 507, 512 (11th Cir. 1990)(quoting H.R. 1609, 94th Cong., § 2 (1976)). The district judge reviews legal conclusions de novo, even in the absence of an objection. See Cooper-Houston v. Southern Ry. Co., 37 F. 3d 603, 604 (11th Cir. 1994). Plaintiff initiated the case with a “Notice of Motion and Motion to Intervene Admiralty or Maritime Within the Meaning of Rule 9(h) with an Injunction” under the title of “Treaty”. (Doc. 1.) Defendants are public officials of either the United States or the State of Florida. The Magistrate Judge found the document, construed as a Complaint, to be “wholly insubstantial,
unintelligible, and frivolous”, and therefore found that allowing any amendment would be futile. Indeed the construed objections do not directly address why a claim for relief has been stated, or that any viable claim could be stated, but rather states that the Magistrate Judge has “no contract with regard to [his] business other then [sic] your oath of office and fiduciary duty. . . . You are my guest.” (Doc. #12, p. 1.) After a careful and complete review of the findings and recommendations, as well as the record in this case, the Court agrees with the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge and will overrule the construed objections.
Accordingly, it is now ORDERED: 1. The Report and Recommendation (Doc. #11) is hereby adopted and the findings incorporated herein.
2. Plaintiff's construed objections (Doc. #12) are overruled.
3. Plaintiff's Affidavit of Indigency (Doc. #2) is denied.
3. The case is dismissed without prejudice. The Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly, terminate all pending motions, and close the file. DONE and ORDERED at Fort Myers, Florida, this 30th day of December, 2019.
\ Pome Ae p
E. STEELE
Sq IGOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Copies: All Parties of Record
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)
- Jeffrey S. v. State Bd. OF Educ. OF State OF Ga., 896 F.2d 507 (11th Cir. 1990)
- United States v. Powell, 628 F.3d 1254 (11th Cir. 2010)