United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Tampa Division
VIRGINIA M. HERNANDEZ COVINGTON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
matter is before the Court on consideration of United States
Magistrate Judge Thomas B. McCoun III's Report and
Recommendation (Doc. # 7), filed on August 11, 2017,
recommending that pro se Plaintiff Jeanette Braxton
Secret's construed motion to proceed in forma pauperis be
denied without prejudice. As of this date, there are no
objections to the Report and Recommendation, and the time for
the parties to file such objections has elapsed.
Plaintiffs Jeanette Braxton Secret, Carmen Braxton, Jeanette
Braxton Secret Family Trust, and Andrew K. Jones Family Trust
initiated this action on July 31, 2017, naming the following
Defendants: (1) Phil Roe, MD, Chairman, House Committee on
Veterans' Affairs; (2) Johnny Isakson, Majority Senate
Committee on Veterans' Affairs; (3) Jon Tester, Minority
Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs; (4) David J.
Shulkin, Secretary of Veterans Affairs; (5) Catherine
Mitrano, District Chief Counsel; (6) Kathy Simpson, Deputy
Chief Counsel; (7) E. Douglas Bradshaw, Chief Counsel, Torts
Law Group; (8) Dr. Abu T. Siddigui, MD, Staff Physician and
Attending Physician; (9) Dr. Abelardo Augustines, Primary
Care Doctor; (10) Anuja Pradhan, MD, Hematology/Oncology;
(11) Sonia A Cotton, Radiology Nurse; (12) Mr. Robinson Ang,
Physical Therapist; (13) David M. Crowder, RN; (14) Lawrence
Matthews, 5B Nurses Station; (15) Dr. McDonald, MD, Lung
Doctor; (16) Mr. Ariel Rodriguez, Chief, Patient Advocate;
(17) Ronald Gathright, Patient Advocate; (18) Terrence Watts,
5th District- Orlando VAMCA; and (19) Tatishka
Musgrove, VAMC, Bay Pines Pines VAHCS.
se Complaint provides an account of the death of Andrew Kirk
Jones, a 79-year old veteran, at the Bay Pines VA Hospital,
located in Hillsborough County, Florida. Plaintiffs label the
Complaint as a “Complaint for a Civil Case Alleging
Negligence” and array a host of claims, including but
not limited to, medical malpractice and wrongful death.
accompanied the Complaint with an Application to Proceed in
forma pauperis. (Doc. # 2). The Magistrate Judge
examined the Complaint and the Application to proceed in
forma pauperis and filed a Report and Recommendation on
August 11, 2017, recommending denial of the Application for
in forma pauperis status without prejudice. (Doc. # 7). The
Magistrate Judge also recommended dismissal of the Complaint
with the opportunity to file an Amended Complaint within 20
days. (Id.) The Magistrate Judge recommended that
the Court “grant Ms. Braxton Secret permission to file
a Financial Affidavit fully setting forth her income and
liabilities and an Amended Complaint, which clearly sets
forth a cause of action consistent with the pleading
requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and
which clearly states the basis of the Court's
jurisdiction.” (Id. at 10).
Plaintiff Braxton Secret filed various documents after the
Report and Recommendation was issued, she did not file an
objection to the Report and Recommendation. She filed a
document purporting to be an Amended Complaint (Doc. # 10),
but it is actually 19 separate documents, each one page in
length. The document, even when construed broadly, does not
meet the requirements for a Complaint under the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure, and it appears to be the same Complaint
that she initially filed, with the inclusion of some
handwritten notes. (Id.). She also filed a Motion
requesting referral to arbitration. (Doc. # 12). In that
Motion, she suggested that she may be inclined to pay the
$400 filing fee for civil cases. (Id.). The Court
denied the Motion for referral to arbitration, explaining
that it was prematurely asserted. (Doc. # 13).
Analysis of Report and Recommendation
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); 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, Garvey v. Vaughn,
993 F.2d 776, 779 n.9 (11th Cir. 1993), and the court may
accept, reject or modify, in whole or in part, the findings
and recommendations. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The
district judge 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); Castro
Bobadilla v. Reno, 826 F.Supp. 1428, 1431-32 (S.D. Fla.
1993), aff'd, 28 F.3d 116 (11th Cir. 1994).
conducting a careful and complete review of the findings,
conclusions and recommendations, and giving de novo review to
matters of law, the Court accepts the factual findings and
legal conclusions of the Magistrate Judge and the
recommendation of the Magistrate Judge.
it is now
ADJUDGED, and DECREED:
Report and Recommendation (Doc. # 7) is
ACCEPTED and ADOPTED.
Plaintiff's construed motion for leave to proceed in
forma pauperis (Doc. # 2) ...