Deanna Kent v. J.B. Thornhill

District Court, M.D. Florida·Decided November 26, 2025·No. 8:25-cv-01530·Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION

DEANNA KENT, Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 8:25-cv-1530-KKM-LSG

J.B. THORNHILL,

Defendant.

ORDER In a November 5, 2025, Report, (Doc. 9), the United States Magistrate Judge recommends denying pro se plaintiff Deanna Kent’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis, (Doc. 3), and dismissing her complaint, (Doc. 1), without leave to amend. The deadline to object has passed without an objection. After conducting a careful and complete review of the findings and recommendations, a district judge may accept, reject, or modify a magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). If a party files a timely and specific objection to a finding of fact by a magistrate judge, the district court must conduct a de novo review of that factual issue. Stokes v. Singletary, 952 F.2d 1567, 1576 (11th Cir. 1992). The district court reviews legal conclusions de novo, even absent an objection. See 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). Absent an objection and after reviewing the factual allegations and legal conclusions, the Court adopts the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation. As explained in the Report, Kent’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis does not include the required affidavit of indigency. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). But I agree that even if Kent were to correct her motion, her complaint must be dismissed because it is frivolous and fails to state a claim for relief against her court-appointed public defender, who has since withdrawn from representing Kent in state court. See R&R at 3-6. Accordingly, the following is ORDERED: 1. The Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 9) is ADOPTED and made a part of this Order for all purposes. 2. Kent’s Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 3) is DENIED. 3. Kent’s Complaint (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED. 4. The Clerk is directed to TERMINATE any pending motions or deadlines and to CLOSE the case. ORDERED in Tampa, Florida, on November 26, 2025.

athryn’ Kimball Mizelle United States District Judge

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Deanna Kent v. J.B. Thornhill, (M.D. Fla. 2025).

Deanna Kent v. J.B. Thornhill (Deanna Kent v. J.B. Thornhill) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Marina Cooper-Houston v. Southern Railway Company
37 F.3d 603 (Eleventh Circuit, 1994)
Ashworth v. Glades Cnty. Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners
379 F. Supp. 3d 1244 (M.D. Florida, 2019)