MURPHY
v.
MIAMI-DADE COUNTY GOVERNMENT AUTHORITY
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.
In Murphy v. Miami-Dade County Government Authority, the district court granted plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis but dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, without prejudice to filing an amended complaint.
The court granted plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis, finding the magistrate judge's report and recommendation well-reasoned and correct. However, the complaint was dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, with leave to file an amended complaint by August 21, 2025.
“If a party fails to object to any portion of the magistrate judge's report, those portions are reviewed for clear error.”
Establishes the standard of review applicable when no objections are filed to a magistrate judge's report and recommendation.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJames L. Murphy filed a complaint against Miami-Dade County Government Authority and moved to proceed in forma pauperis. The magistrate judge issued a…
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 In Forma Pauperis Motion cases and more on FLexlaw
THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Plaintiff's Complaint, ECF No. [1], and Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. [3]. On July 15, 2025, the Motion was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Marty Fulgueira Elfenbein, ECF No. [11]. On July 15, 2025, Judge Elfenbein issued a report and recommendation (“R&R”), ECF No. [14], recommending that the Motion be granted. None of the Parties filed objections to the R&R.
"If a party fails to object to any portion of the magistrate judge's report, those portions are reviewed for clear error.” Macort v. Prem, Inc., 208 F. App'x 781, 784 (11th Cir. 2006) (quoting Johnson v. Zema Sys. Corp., 170 F. 3d 734, 739 (7th Cir. 1999). The portions of the report and recommendation to which an objection is made are reviewed de novo only if those objections "pinpoint the specific findings that the party disagrees with." United States v. Schultz, 565 F. 3d 1353, 1360 (11th Cir. 2009); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); Williams v. McNeil, 557 F. 3d 1287, 1291 (11th Cir. 2009) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)). Nevertheless, the Court is fully advised in the premises of the R&R. Upon review, the Court finds the R&R to be well reasoned and correct.
The Court therefore agrees with the analysis in the R&R and concludes that the Motion to Proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. [3], must be granted. However, because the Complaint fails to state a claim for which relief may be granted, the Complaint must be dismissed.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
1. The Report and Recommendation, ECF No. [14], is ADOPTED. 2. Plaintiff's Motion, ECF No. [3], is GRANTED. 3. This case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Plaintiff may file an Amended Complaint in accordance with the R&R, and this Court's Order, no later than August 21, 2025. The failure to file an Amended Complaint or show cause by August 21, 2025, will result in dismissal of this case without prejudice and without further notice.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, on July 31, 2025.
Copies to:
Counsel of Record James L. Murphy 5601 NW 11th Avenue Miami, FL 33127