From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Patten v. Laclair

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FORT MYERS DIVISION
Jan 8, 2020
Case No. 2:19-cv-763-FtM-60NPM (M.D. Fla. Jan. 8, 2020)

Opinion

Case No. 2:19-cv-763-FtM-60NPM

01-08-2020

BARRINGTON R PATTEN, Estate, Plaintiff, v. JENNIFER LACLAIR and ALLY FINANCIAL INC., Defendants.


ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND DISMISSING CASE

This matter is before the Court on consideration of the report and recommendation of Nicholas P. Mizell, United States Magistrate Judge, entered on December 12, 2019. (Doc. # 8). Judge Mizell recommends Plaintiff Barrington R. Patten's "Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs" be denied, and that this action be dismissed. Neither Plaintiff nor Defendants filed an objection to the report and recommendation, and the time to object has expired.

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). 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).

Upon due consideration of the record, including Judge Mizell's report and recommendation, the Court adopts the report and recommendation. The Court agrees with Judge Mizell's detailed and well-reasoned factual findings and legal conclusions, including that the Complaint is frivolous and any amendment would be futile. Consequently, Plaintiff's "Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs" is denied, and this action is dismissed with prejudice.

Accordingly, it is

ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED: (1) The report and recommendation (Doc. # 8) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED. (2) Plaintiff's "Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs" (Doc. # 2) is hereby DENIED. (3) This action is dismissed with prejudice. The Clerk is directed to terminate any pending motions and deadlines and thereafter close this case.

DONE and ORDERED in Chambers, in Fort Myers, Florida, this 8th day of January, 2020.

/s/ _________

TOM BARBER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE


Summaries of

Patten v. Laclair

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FORT MYERS DIVISION
Jan 8, 2020
Case No. 2:19-cv-763-FtM-60NPM (M.D. Fla. Jan. 8, 2020)
Case details for

Patten v. Laclair

Case Details

Full title:BARRINGTON R PATTEN, Estate, Plaintiff, v. JENNIFER LACLAIR and ALLY…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FORT MYERS DIVISION

Date published: Jan 8, 2020

Citations

Case No. 2:19-cv-763-FtM-60NPM (M.D. Fla. Jan. 8, 2020)

Citing Cases

Patten v. Lown

. Florida, 687 F. App'x 861, 862 (11th Cir. 2017) (affirming district court's sua sponte dismissal of…

Bey v. Mason

His arguments are similar to the sovereign citizen arguments that courts have routinely dismissed as…