ANA MARIA RODRIGUEZ v. CITY OF PORT RICHEY et al.

• Court: District Court, M.D. Florida
• Decided: November 17, 2025
• Docket: 8:25-cv-02503
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION

ANA MARIA RODRIGUEZ,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No: 8:25-cv-2503-MSS-SPF

CITY OF PORT RICHEY et al.,

Defendants.

ORDER THIS CAUSE comes before the Court for consideration of Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs, (Dkt. 2), which the Court construes as a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. Also before the Court is Plaintiff’s Complaint. (Dkt. 1) On October 23, 2025, United States Magistrate Judge Sean P. Flynn issued a Report and Recommendation. (Dkt. 3) Judge Flynn recommended that Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis be denied and the Complaint be dismissed with leave to amend. (Id.) Plaintiff has not objected to the Report and Recommendation, and the deadline for doing so has passed. Upon consideration of all relevant filings, case law, and being otherwise fully advised, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis and DISMISSES the Complaint without prejudice. In the Eleventh Circuit, a district judge may accept, reject, or modify the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation after conducting a careful and complete review of the findings and recommendations. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1);

Williams v. Wainwright, 681 F.2d 732, 732 (11th Cir. 1982). 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)). 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 file, the Court finds 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. 3), is CONFIRMED and ADOPTED as part of this Order. 2. Plaintiffs Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, (Dkt. 2), 1s DENIED. 3. The Complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Plaintiff may file an amended complaint within TWENTY-ONE (21) DAYS of the date of this Order. If Plaintiff files an amended complaint, Plaintiff shall also file an amended motion to proceed in forma pauperis. If Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint with an amended motion to proceed in forma pauperis within the 21-day period, the dismissal shall be WITH PREJUDICE.

DONE and ORDERED in Tampa, Florida, this 17th day of November 2025.

MARYS: SCRIVEN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Copies furnished to: Counsel of Record Any Unrepresented Person