THIS CAUSE is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 11; Report), entered by the Honorable Thomas E. Morris, United States Magistrate Judge, on November 21, 2011. In the Report, Magistrate Judge Morris recommends that Plaintiff's Amended Affidavit of Indigency (Dkt. No. 10) be denied and this case be dismissed. See Report at 6. On December 5, 2011, Plaintiff filed his Objections to Magistrate Judge (Dkt. No. 12; Objections).
The Court "may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). If no specific objections to findings of facts are filed, the district court is not required to conduct a de novo review of those findings. See Garvey v. Vaughn, 993 F.2d 776, 779 n.9 (11th Cir. 1993); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). However, the district court must review legal conclusions de novo. See Cooper-Houston v. Southern Ry. Co., 37 F.3d 603, 604 (11th Cir. 1994); United States v. Rice, No. 2:07-mc-8-FtM-29SPC, 2007 WL 1428615, at * 1 (M.D. Fla. May 14, 2007). Upon independent review of the file and for the reasons stated in the Magistrate Judge's Report, the Court will overrule the Objections, and accept and adopt the legal and factual conclusions recommended by the Magistrate Judge. Accordingly, it is hereby
1. Plaintiff's Objections to Magistrate Judge (Dkt. No. 12) are OVERRULED.
2. The Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 11) is ADOPTED.
3. Plaintiff's Amended Affidavit of Indigency (Dkt. No. 10), which the Court construes as a motion to proceed in forma pauperis, is DENIED.
4. This case is DISMISSED. 5. The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment dismissing the case, terminate any pending motions or deadlines as moot, and close this file.
Copies to: Hon. Thomas E. Morris Counsel of Record
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw ...