From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Council v. Department of Veterans Affairs

United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Orlando Division
Jan 6, 2010
Case No. 6:09-cv-1406-Orl-35GJK (M.D. Fla. Jan. 6, 2010)

Opinion

Case No. 6:09-cv-1406-Orl-35GJK.

January 6, 2010


ORDER


THIS CAUSE comes before the Court for consideration of Plaintiff's Motion for Permission to Appeal in Forma Pauperis (Dkt. 51) ("the Motion"), filed on October 21, 2009. On November 6, 2009, the United States Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation (Dkt. 58), recommending that the Motion be denied. No objection to the Report and Recommendation was filed, and the deadline for objection has passed.

After 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, 732 (11th Cir. 1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1112 (1983). A district judge "shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). This requires that the district judge "give fresh consideration to those issues to which specific objection has been made by a party." Jeffrey S. v. State Bd. of Educ., 896 F.2d 507, 512 (11th Cir. 1990) (quoting H.R. 1609, 94th Cong. § 2 (1976)). "Whenever any party files a timely and specific objection to a finding of fact by a magistrate, the district court has an obligation to conduct a de novo review of the record with respect to that factual issue." LoConte v. Dugger, 847 F.2d 745, 750 (11th Cir. 1988). However, 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. Southern Ry., 37 F.3d 603, 604 (11th Cir. 1994).

Upon consideration of the Report and Recommendation, in conjunction with an independent examination of the district court record, the Court is of the opinion that the Report and Recommendation should be adopted, confirmed, and approved in all respects. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that:

1. The Report and Recommendation (Dkt. 25) is CONFIRMED and ADOPTED as part of this Order;
2. Plaintiff's Motion for Permission to Appeal in Forma Pauperis (Dkt. 51) is DENIED.
DONE and ORDERED.


Summaries of

Council v. Department of Veterans Affairs

United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Orlando Division
Jan 6, 2010
Case No. 6:09-cv-1406-Orl-35GJK (M.D. Fla. Jan. 6, 2010)
Case details for

Council v. Department of Veterans Affairs

Case Details

Full title:DARRALYN C. COUNCIL, Plaintiff, v. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, et al.…

Court:United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Orlando Division

Date published: Jan 6, 2010

Citations

Case No. 6:09-cv-1406-Orl-35GJK (M.D. Fla. Jan. 6, 2010)

Citing Cases

Gateway Radiology Consultants, P.A. v. Carranza (In re Gateway Radiology Consultants, P.A.)

Adv. Doc. No. 11 at 28.Council v. Dep't of Veterans Affairs , 2010 WL 98984, at *3 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 6, 2010)…