Smith v. Ivey (MAG+)

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHERN DIVISION

PETER J. SMITH, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) CASE NO. 2:24-cv-185-RAH ) KAY IVEY, et al., ) ) Defendants. ) )

ORDER On May 21, 2024, the Magistrate Judge recommended this case be dismissed without prejudice. (Doc. 7.) On June 4, 2024, Plaintiff Peter Smith filed an objection where he argues that his damages exceed $20.00. (Doc. 8.) However, Magistrate Judge Kelly Pate recommended dismissal because of a failure by the Plaintiff to pay the required filing fee or complete and file the Court’s long-form application to proceed in forma pauperis. When a party objects to a Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, the district court must review the disputed portions de novo. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The district court “may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or resubmit the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). De novo review requires that the district court independently consider factual issues based on the record. Jeffrey S. ex rel. Ernest S. v. State Bd. of Educ., 896 F.2d 507, 513 (11th Cir. 1990). See also United States v. Gopie, 347 F. App'x 495, 499 n.1 (11th Cir. 2009). However, objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation must be sufficiently specific in order to warrant de novo review. See Macort v. Prem, Inc., 208 F. App'x 781, 783- 85 (11th Cir. 2006). Otherwise, a Report and Recommendation is reviewed for clear

error. Id. Upon an independent review of the record, it is ORDERED as follows: 1. The Objection (Doc. 8) is OVERRULED; 2. The Recommendation (Doc. 7) is ADOPTED. 3. This is action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. A separate final judgment will follow.

DONE, on this the 28th day of June 2024. Cbd. oN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE