Green v. Wilkinson

• Court: District Court, M.D. Florida
• Decided: February 11, 2025
• Docket: 8:24-cv-01182
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION

JAMES GREEN,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 8:24-cv-1182-KKM-LSG

ERIC WILKINSON, et al.,

Defendants.

ORDER In a January 22, 2025, report (Doc. 16), the United States Magistrate Judge recom- mends denial of pro se plaintiff James Green’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis and dismissal of this action with prejudice. The deadline to object has passed without an ob- jection. After conducting a careful and complete review of the findings and recommenda- tions, a district judge may accept, reject, or modify a magistrate judge’s Report and Rec- ommendation. 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. , 952 F.2d 1567, 1576 (11th Cir. 1992). The district court reviews legal conclusions de novo, even absent an objection. , 37 F.3d 603, 604 (11th Cir. 1994);

, 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. Green’s claims un-

der 42 U.S.C. § 1983 are all barred by Florida’s four-year statute of limitations on such claims. § 95.11(3)(o), Fla. Stat.; , 340 F.3d 1279, 1283 (11th Cir. 2003) (per curiam). As a result, Green fails to state a claim upon which relief may be

granted. This means that Green’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis must be denied and that his complaint must be dismissed. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Finally, although a plaintiff is ordinarily afforded a chance to amend his complaint, the deficiencies in Green’s

complaint are not “curable.” , 885 F.3d 1289, 1291 (11th Cir. 2018). Even with a “more carefully drafted complaint,” Green could not state a § 1983 claim because Green cannot plausibly allege that Florida’s statute of limitations

does not bar his claims. Accordingly, the following is ORDERED: 1. The Magistrate Judge’s Report & Recommendation (Doc. 16) is

ADOPTED and made a part of this order for all purposes. 2. Green’s Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis (Doc. 2) is DENIED. 3. Green’s action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. 4, The Clerk is directed to enter judgment, which shall read “This case is dis- missed with prejudice.” 5. The Clerk is directed to CLOSE this case and mail Green a copy of this Order. ORDERED in Tampa, Florida, on February 11, 2025.

pate Gnph Mizelle United States District Judge