GRILLS
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA
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 dismiss the plaintiff's complaint.
The plaintiff filed a complaint and sought to proceed in forma pauperis. The Magistrate Judge found the complaint did not comply with Rule 8 and gave …
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 Pro Se Litigant Standards cases and more on FLexlaw
Defendant. /
ORDER1
Before the Court is United States Magistrate Judge Nicholas P. Mizell’s Report and Recommendation (R&R) (Doc. 12), recommending that the Court dismiss Plaintiff Robert Joseph Grills, Jr.’s Complaint (Doc. 1).
No party has objected to the R&R, and the period to do so has lapsed. This matter is ripe for review. 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); Williams v. Wainwright, 681 F. 2d 732 (11th Cir. 1982).
In the absence of specific objections, there is no requirement that a district judge review factual findings de novo, and the court may accept, reject or modify the findings in whole or in part. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Garvey v. Vaughn, 993 F. 2d 776,
Thus, the fact that a hyperlink ceases to work or directs the user to some other site does not affect the opinion of the Court. 779 n.9 (11th Cir. 1993). The district judge reviews legal conclusions de novo, even in the absence of an objection. Cooper-Houston v. Southern Ry. Co., 37 F. 3d 603, 604 (11th Cir. 1994). When Grills filed this case, he also filed an Affidavit of Indigency, seeking to proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc. 2). Judge Mizell reviewed the Complaint under 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and found that it did not comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, even under the less stringent standard applied to pro se litigants. (Doc. 8). Judge Mizell gave Grills until August 8, 2019, to file an amended complaint. When Grills missed the deadline, Judge Mizell ordered him to show cause why his Complaint should not be dismissed by August 23, 2019. (Doc. 10). Delivery of that order was delayed, so Judge Mizell extended the deadline to September 17, 2019. (Doc. 11). Grills has not filed an amended complaint or otherwise responded to Judge Mizell’s orders. Judge Mizell finds bad faith in Grills’ noncompliance and recommends that the Court dismiss his Complaint.
After conducting an independent examination of the file and on consideration of Judge Mizell’s findings and recommendations, the Court accepts and adopts the R&R. Accordingly, it is now ORDERED: (1) United States Magistrate Judge Nicholas P. Mizell’s Report and Recommendation (R&R) (Doc. 12) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED. (2) Plaintiff Robert Joseph Grills, Jr.’s Complaint (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED. (3) The Clerk is directed to enter judgment, terminate all pending motions and deadlines, and close the file. DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida this 7th day of October, 2019.
Lhe hlatrrthe 7
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)
- Garvey v. Vaughn, 993 F.2d 776 (11th Cir. 1993)
- Williams v. Louie L. Wainwright, 681 F.2d 732 (11th Cir. 1982)