Taylor v. Hall

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA OCALA DIVISION

RAYMOND TAYLOR,

Plaintiff, v. Case No. 5:25-cv-19-WFJ-PRL

DEPUTY JESSIE HALL, DEPUTY KYLE RIEMER, DEPUTY DAVID FLORES, DEPUTY HUDSON HOUGHTON, and CITRUS COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT,

Defendants. _______________________________/

ORDER Before the Court is Plaintiff Raymond Taylor’s pro se motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Dkt. 2), and the United States Magistrate Judge’s report recommending that the motion be denied and the case be dismissed (Dkt. 5). The time for filing objections has passed. On January 29, 2025, the Court took under advisement the motion to proceed in forma pauperis based on deficiencies in the complaint. Dkt. 4. The order provided Mr. Taylor an opportunity to file an amended complaint by February 26, 2025—one that states a viable federal cause of action. Failure to file an amended complaint would result “in a recommendation that this action be dismissed for failure to prosecute.” Dkt. 4. Plaintiff did not file an amended complaint.

On March 14, 2025, in a thorough and well-reasoned report United States Magistrate Judge Lammens recommended that Plaintiff’s case be dismissed. Dkt. 5. Plaintiff had been advised of the deficiencies of the complaint and was afforded

an opportunity to correct them. Dkt. 5. Plaintiff, however, has not filed anything in this case since it was opened. The Court reviews the legal conclusions 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 facts are clear from the record. The Magistrate Judge properly recommends that the action be dismissed. For the reasons explained in the Report and

Recommendation, and in conjunction with an independent examination of the file, the Court rules as follows: 1. The Report and Recommendation (Dkt. 5) is adopted, confirmed, and approved in all respects and made a part of this order.

2. Plaintiff’s application to proceed in the district court without prepaying fees or costs (Dkt. 2) is denied. 3. This action is dismissed for failure to prosecute and to comply with the

Court’s prior order and report and recommendation. 4. The Clerk is directed to terminate any pending motions and deadlines and to close the case. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers on March 31, 2025.

WILLIAM F. iS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE