Graham v. Internal Revenue Criminal Investigation Unit

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION

RACHEL REGINA GRAHAM,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No: 5:24-cv-696-MSS-PRL

INTERNAL REVENUE CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION UNIT, JOHN MAND, JOHN DOE, and JOHN DOE,

Defendants.

ORDER THIS CAUSE comes before the Court for consideration of Plaintiff’s Application for Determination of Civil Indigent Status, (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 January 2, 2025, United States Magistrate Judge Philip R. Lammens entered an Order taking the Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis under advisement and directing Plaintiff to file an amended complaint on or before January 30, 2025. (Dkt. 4) In the Order, Judge Lammens advised Plaintiff of the Complaint’s deficiencies. (See id.) Judge Lammens warned that the failure to timely file an amended complaint could result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed for failure to prosecute. (Id. at 7) Plaintiff failed to timely file an amended complaint. Accordingly, on February 2, 2025, Judge Lammens issued a Report and Recommendation, (Dkt. 5), which recommended Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis be denied and the

Complaint be dismissed. Plaintiff has not objected to Judge Lammens’s 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.

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)). Absent 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 is of the opinion the Report and Recommendation should be adopted, confirmed, and approved in all respects. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that: 1. The Report and Recommendation, (Dkt. 5), is CONFIRMED and ADOPTED as part of this Order. 2. Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, (Dkt. 2), is DENIED. 3. The Complaint, (Dkt. 1), is DISMISSED. 4. The Clerk is directed to CLOSE THIS CASE.

DONE and ORDERED in Tampa, Florida, this 26th day of February 2025.

MARY\S_SGRIVEN Copies furnished to: UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Counsel of Record Any Unrepresented Person