Lumpkin v. UDR, Inc.

• Court: District Court, M.D. Florida
• Decided: August 22, 2025
• Docket: 8:25-cv-00816
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION

BRYAN LUMPKIN,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No: 8:25-cv-816-MSS-NHA

UDR, Inc. et al.,

Defendants.

ORDER THIS CAUSE comes before the Court for consideration of Plaintiff Lumpkin’s Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs, (Dkt. 3), which the Court construes as a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. Also before the Court is Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint. (Dkt. 7) On April 24, 2025, United States Magistrate Judge Natalie Hirt Adams issued a Report and Recommendation. (Dkt. 11) Judge Adams recommended that Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis be denied and the Amended Complaint be dismissed with leave to amend. (Id.) Plaintiff filed an objection to the Report and Recommendation. (Dkt. 12) 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)). In the absence of 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 finds that the Report and

Recommendation should be adopted, confirmed, and approved in all respects. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that: 1. The Report and Recommendation, (Dkt. 11), is CONFIRMED and ADOPTED as part of this Order. 2. Plaintiff’s Objection, (Dkt. 12), is OVERRULED.

3. Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, (Dkt. 3), is DENIED. 4. The Amended Complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Plaintiff may file a second amended complaint within thirty (30) days of the date of this Order. If Plaintiff files an amended complaint, Plaintiff shall also file an amended motion to proceed in forma pauperis. If Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint with an amended motion to proceed in forma pauperis within the 30-day period, the dismissal shall be WITH PREJUDICE.

DONE and ORDERED in Tampa, Florida, this 22nd day of August 2025.

MARY'S _SGRIVEN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Copies furnished to: Counsel of Record Any Unrepresented Person