United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Fort Myers Division
TIMOTHY E. TRIMBLE, Plaintiff,
ROSARIO R CASTRO RIOS, JOSHUA LOPEZ, THOMAS R BUSATTA and ROBERT PAGE HENDERSON, Defendants.
POLSTER CHAPPELL, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
the Court is United States Magistrate Judge Nicholas P.
Mizell's Report and Recommendation (the
“R&R”). (Doc. 9). Judge Mizell recommends
denying Plaintiff Timothy Trimble's Application to
Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs
(Doc. 2) and dismissing the Amended Complaint (Doc. 8).
Trimble filed a pro se response. (Doc. 12). This matter is
ripe for review.
conducting a careful and complete review of the findings and
recommendations, a district judge may accept, reject, or
modify a report and recommendation. 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1); Williams v. Wainwright, 681 F.2d 732, 732
(11th Cir. 1982). Without specific objections, there is no
requirement to 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, 779 n.9 (11th Cir. 1993). But review of legal
conclusions is de novo, regardless of any objection.
Cooper-Houston v. S. Ry., 37 F.3d 603, 604 (11th
one-page response, Trimble does not make any specific
objections. (Doc. 12). Instead, Trimble “takes
issue” with the R&R. (Doc. 12 at 1). He also
“reserves the right to pursue any legal means regarding
deprivation of rights by the [D]efendants or even this
[C]ourt.” (Doc. 12 at 1). And Trimble “finds it
appalling that a sworn officer of the [C]ourt for the United
States of America would employ such tactics against a pro se
litigant.” (Doc. 12 at 1). It is unclear what rights
Trimble intends to reserve or what “tactics” he
disagrees with. This lack of a specific objection, however,
means the Court need not review the R&R's factual
findings de novo. Kohser v. Protective Life Corp.,
649 Fed.Appx. 774, 777 (11th Cir. 2016). “Parties
filing objections to a magistrate's report and
recommendation must specifically identity those findings
objected to. Frivolous, conclusive, or general objections
need not be considered by the district court.”
United States v. Schultz, 565 F.3d 1353, 1361 (11th
Cir. 2009) (citation omitted). The Court, therefore, accepts
and adopts the factual findings Judge Mizell made on the
existence of Trimble's final state court
Trimble challenged those findings, federal courts may take
judicial notice of state-court dockets. E.g.,
Paez v. Sec'y, Fla. Dep't of Corr., 931 F.3d
1304, 1306-08 (11th Cir. 2019) (holding a report and
recommendation properly took judicial notice of a state-court
docket sua sponte when plaintiff failed to (1) object, (2)
ask to be heard, or (3) dispute the accuracy of the docket);
see also Boyd v. Georgia, 512 Fed.Appx.
915, 916-18 (11th Cir. 2013). Here, the R&R directed
Trimble to the specific case name and number filed in the
Twentieth Judicial Circuit in and for Lee County,
Florida. (Doc. 9 at 4). A final judgment
against Trimble-labeled “FINAL JUDGMENT”-was
entered in state court on the day Judge Mizell identified.
(Doc. 9 at 4). The docket shows Trimble lost on appeal.
See also Trimble v. Castro, 123 So.3d 573 (Fla.
Dist. Ct. App. 2013) (summarily affirming); Trimble v.
Castro, 113 So.3d 11 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2013) (same).
Now, the judgment creditor is trying to collect on the final
state-court judgment. Thus, the R&R findings appear
accurate, and Trimble does nothing to call them into
this factual finding, Judge Mizell concluded
Rooker-Feldman bars the Court from hearing
this case. (Doc. 9 at 3-5). The Court agrees with that legal
analysis and adopts it. Trimble accurately notes the Supreme
Court reined in usage of Rooker-Feldman.
(Doc. 8 at 3-4 (citing Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic
Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 284 (2005))). Yet that
doctrine still has its place when-as here-a state-court loser
effectively seeks to nullify a state-court judgment.
Rooker-Feldman aside, the R&R continued
and peeked at whether Trimble stated a claim. (Doc. 9 at
5-6). Judge Mizell concluded Trimble did not state a claim
because he brought a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for purely
private conduct. (Doc. 9 at 5-6). Again, the Court agrees and
adopts that conclusion.
an independent and careful examination of the file, the Court
accepts the R&R (Doc. 9) in full and incorporates it into
it is now
Report and Recommendation (Doc. 9) is ACCEPTED and
ADOPTED and the findings are incorporated here.
Plaintiffs Application to Proceed in District Court Without
Prepaying Fees or Costs (Doc. 2) is DENIED.
Plaintiffs Amended Complaint (Doc. 8) is
Clerk is DIRECTED to enter judgment,
terminate all pending motions and ...