Opinion
Case No. 8:10-cv-1529-T-33MAP.
September 15, 2010
ORDER
This matter is before the Court on consideration of United States Magistrate Judge Mark A. Pizzo's Report and Recommendation (Doc. # 11), filed on August 20, 2010, recommending that Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. # 2), be denied and further recommending that this action be dismissed.
Plaintiff filed a timely objection to the report and recommendation. (Doc. # 12). The Court has considered the objection, and upon due consideration, the Court overrules Plaintiff's objection and adopts the report and recommendation of the magistrate judge.
Analysis
Pro se Plaintiff filed an incoherent complaint against various defendants and sought leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc. # 1, 2). The magistrate judge deferred ruling on Plaintiff's request to proceed in forma pauperis and allowed Plaintiff to file an amended complaint to cure noted deficiencies in the complaint. (Doc. # 6). Plaintiff filed her amended complaint on August 16, 2010. (Doc. # 10). The amended complaint is incoherent, it is not divided into counts, and it does not specify which allegations are lodged against which defendants. The magistrate judge comments: "as currently pled, the amended complaint lacks sufficient facts from which a cognizable cause of action can be inferred, makes disjointed and confusing allegations, and is generally incoherent." (Doc. # 11 at 1-2). Thus, the magistrate judge recommends that the motion to proceed in forma pauperis be denied and the complaint be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e).
Plaintiff objects to the magistrate judge's recommendation that the motion to proceed in forma pauperis be denied and the complaint be dismissed; however, Plaintiff's objection is just as incoherent and misguided as her amended complaint. The Court has construed her objection broadly pursuant to Tannenbaum v. United States, 148 F.3d 1262, 1263 (11th Cir. 1998) (pro se pleadings are held to a less stringent standard than pleadings drafted by attorneys and will, therefore, be liberally construed"), and other law; however, even construed liberally, and giving Plaintiff the benefit of the doubt, her objection to the report and recommendation does not warrant an order allowing her case to proceed.
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 (11th Cir. 1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1112 (1983). 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) (Table).
After 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.
Accordingly, it is now ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED: ACCEPTED ADOPTED. in forma pauperis DENIED, DISMISSED. CLOSE THIS CASE.
(1) The Report and Recommendation (Doc. # 11) is and (2) Plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed (Doc. # 2) is and Plaintiff's amended complaint (Doc. # 10) is (3) The Clerk shall DONE and ORDERED in Chambers in Tampa, Florida, this 15th day of September 2010.