Hett v. Regions Bank

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION

HARRY PAUL HETT,

Plaintiff, v. Case No: 8:25-cv-161-WFJ-AEP

REGIONS BANK and LORRIE SMELTZER,

Defendants. /

ORDER

Before the Court is the United States Magistrate Judge’s report recommending that Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Dkt. 8) be denied and Plaintiff ’s pro se amended complaint (Dkt. 12) be dismissed. Dkt. 13. The time for filing objections has passed. Absent objection, the Court conducts a “careful and complete” review of the report and recommendation. Williams v. Wainwright, 681 F.2d 732, 732 (11th Cir. 1982 (per curiam) (quotation citation omitted). “Clear error” review applies to portions of the report and recommendation to which no objection is made. Macort v. Prem, Inc., 208 F. App’x 781, 784 (11th Cir. 2006) (per curiam) (quotation citation omitted). Legal conclusions are reviewed de novo in the absence of an objection. See LeCroy v. McNeil, 397 F. App’x 554, 556 (11th Cir. 2010) (citation omitted); Cooper-Houston v. S. Ry. Co., 37 F.3d 603, 604 (11th Cir. 1994). The Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the Magistrate Judge’s report and recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Williams, 681 F.2d at 732.

The Magistrate Judge, in a thorough and well-reasoned analysis, found that the amended complaint (Dkt. 12) fails to allege a sufficient basis for either diversity or federal question jurisdiction. Dkt. 13. Plaintiff may not use 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983 to sue private actors not operating as state actors. This Court does not have the authority to prosecute the fake Harry Paul Hett, Jr., inform the VA about a fraudulent claim, or order the Bank to make an FDIC claim to return his funds. Having conducted a de novo and independent review of the file, and for the sound

reasons explained in the Report and Recommendation, the Court rules as follows: 1. The Report and Recommendation (Dkt. 13) is adopted, confirmed, and approved in all respects and made a part of this order.

2. Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Dkt. 8) is denied. 3. Plaintiff’s amended complaint (Dkt. 12) is dismissed. 4. The Clerk is directed to terminate any pending motions and to close the case.

DONE and ORDERED in Tampa, Florida on July 7, 2025.

s/William F. Jung WILLIAM F. JUNG UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Copies furnished to: Plaintiff, pro se