Wilson v. Good et al

Middle District of Florida, flmd-8:2016-cv-02767

ORDER: The Report and Recommendation (Doc. # {{4}}) is accepted and adopted. Plaintiff Dorothy Scott Wilson's Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. # {{2}}) is denied. Plaintiff Dorothy Scott Wilson's Complaint (Doc. # {{1}}) is dismissed without prejudice and with leave to file an amended complaint by December 5, 2016. Signed by Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington on 10/31/2016. (DMD)

Interested in this case?

Current View

Full Text

PageID 31 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION DOROTHY SCOTT WILSON, Plaintiff, v. Case No. 8:16-cv-2767-T-33JSS COLIN GOOD, on behalf of Peter Philippou, ALEXANDER PHILIPPOU, and MARTHA PHILIPPOU Defendants. --------------------------------/ ORDER This matter is before the Court on consideration of United States Magistrate Judge Julie S. Sneed's Report and Recommendation (Doc. # 4), filed on October 5, 2016, recommending that Plaintiff Dorothy Scott Wilson's Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis be denied and Wilson's Complaint be dismissed. As of the date of this Order, no objections have been filed and the time for filing objections has lapsed. The Court accepts and adopts the Report and Recommendation, denies the Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis, and dismisses the Complaint. I. Background Wilson, proceeding pro se, filed her Complaint on September 28, 2016. Wilson alleges that diversity 1 PageID 32 jurisdiction exists over her breach of contract claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, against Defendants Colin Good, Peter Philippou, Alexander Philippou, and Martha Philippou. (Doc. # 1). However, Wilson, a citizen of Florida, states that Peter Philippou, Alexander Philippou, and Martha Philippou reside in the United Kingdom, and Colin Good resides in Davenport, Florida. (Id.). Thereafter, Wilson filed a Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. # 2), which was referred to Judge Sneed. Judge Sneed subsequently entered the Report and Recommendation considered herein. II. Discussion 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 recommendation. 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, 2 PageID 33 826 F. Supp. 1428, 1431-32 (S.D. Fla. 1993), aff'd, 28 F.3d 116 (11th Cir. 1994). 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. Accordingly, it is now ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED: (1) The Report and Recommendation (Doc. # 4) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED. (2) Plaintiff Dorothy Scott Wilson's Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. # 2) is DENIED. (3) Plaintiff Dorothy Scott Wilson's Complaint (Doc. # 1) is DISMISSED without prejudice and with leave to file an amended complaint by December 5, 2016. DONE and ORDERED in Chambers in Tampa, Florida, this 31st day of October, 2016. 3