Charles Sandford v. Latasha Jones, E. Fahey, James Lubrich, Sarah M. Adelman, Felisha Hopson, Burlington County Child Support Enforcement Agency, and Georgia Child Support Enforcement Agency

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA ORLANDO DIVISION

CHARLES SANDFORD,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No: 6:26-cv-165-JSS-DCI

LATASHA JONES, E. FAHEY, JAMES LUBRICH, SARAH M. ADELMAN, FELISHA HOPSON, BURLINGTON COUNTY CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT AGENCY, and GEORGIA CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT AGENCY,

Defendants. __________________________________/ ORDER Plaintiff, pro se, moves to proceed in forma pauperis. (Dkt. 9.) The magistrate judge recommends denying the motion and dismissing the amended complaint (Dkt. 7) without leave to amend. (Dkt. 16.) No party has filed objections to the recommendation, and the time to do so has passed. Upon consideration, the court adopts the recommendation in full. After conducting a careful and complete review of the findings and recommendations made by a magistrate judge, a district judge “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); accord Fed. R. Civ. P. 72. A party must serve and file written objections to a magistrate judge’s recommendation within fourteen days of being served with a copy of it, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), and the failure to object in a timely fashion “waives the right to challenge on appeal the district court’s order based on unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions,” 11th Cir. R. 3-1. With respect to dispositive matters, the district judge

must conduct a de novo review of any portion of the recommendation to which a timely objection is made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); United States v. Farias-Gonzalez, 556 F.3d 1181, 1184 n.1 (11th Cir. 2009) (“A district court makes a de novo determination of those portions of a magistrate’s report to which objections are filed.”). Even in the absence of a specific objection, the district judge reviews any

legal conclusions de novo. Cooper-Houston v. S. Ry. Co., 37 F.3d 603, 604 (11th Cir. 1994); Ashworth v. Glades Cnty. Bd. of Cnty. Comm’rs, 379 F. Supp. 3d 1244, 1246 (M.D. Fla. 2019). Here, upon conducting a careful and complete review of the magistrate judge’s

recommendation and giving de novo review to matters of law, the court agrees with the recommendation. Accordingly: 1. The magistrate judge’s recommendation (Dkt. 16) is ADOPTED. 2. Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Dkt. 9) is DENIED.

3. The amended complaint (Dkt. 7) is DISMISSED without leave to amend. 4. The Clerk is DIRECTED to enter judgment accordingly, to terminate any pending motions and deadlines, and to close this case. ORDERED in Orlando, Florida, on July 13, 2026.

2 ow S. Sent — NITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Copies furnished to: Unrepresented Parties

-3-