Bell v. U.S. Bank National Assoc., 6:18-cv-1826-Orl-41GJK. (2019)
Court: District Court, M.D. Florida
Number: infdco20190212862
Visitors: 5
Filed: Feb. 11, 2019
Latest Update: Feb. 11, 2019
Summary: ORDER CARLOS E. MENDOZA , District Judge . THIS CAUSE is before the Court on Plaintiff's Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs ("Application," Doc. 12). United States Magistrate Judge Gregory J. Kelly submitted a Report and Recommendation ("R&R," Doc. 14), in which he recommends that the Application be denied. He further recommends that the Complaint (Doc. 1) be dismissed with prejudice because it is frivolous and fails to comply with Federal Rule of Civil
Summary: ORDER CARLOS E. MENDOZA , District Judge . THIS CAUSE is before the Court on Plaintiff's Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs ("Application," Doc. 12). United States Magistrate Judge Gregory J. Kelly submitted a Report and Recommendation ("R&R," Doc. 14), in which he recommends that the Application be denied. He further recommends that the Complaint (Doc. 1) be dismissed with prejudice because it is frivolous and fails to comply with Federal Rule of Civil ..
More
ORDER
CARLOS E. MENDOZA, District Judge.
THIS CAUSE is before the Court on Plaintiff's Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs ("Application," Doc. 12). United States Magistrate Judge Gregory J. Kelly submitted a Report and Recommendation ("R&R," Doc. 14), in which he recommends that the Application be denied. He further recommends that the Complaint (Doc. 1) be dismissed with prejudice because it is frivolous and fails to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8. (Doc. 14 at 4-5).
Plaintiff filed an untimely Objection to the R&R (Doc. 17). Therein, Plaintiff does not appear to object to the substance of the R&R but rather Judge Kelly's authority to issue it. Plaintiff's argument is not well taken. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (noting that magistrate judges may "submit to a judge of the court proposed findings of fact and recommendations for the disposition" of motions). Additionally, Plaintiff intimates that the judge presiding over a separate state case may have been biased against her. To the extent that Plaintiff seeks judicial review of a state court case, this Court has no such authority. See D.C. Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 482 (1983); see also Rooker v. Fid. Tr. Co., 263 U.S. 413, 415-16 (1923). After a de novo review of the record, the Court agrees with the analysis set forth in the R&R.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED as follows:
1. The Report and Recommendation (Doc. 14) is ADOPTED and CONFIRMED and made a part of this Order.
2. Plaintiff's Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs (Doc. 12) is DENIED.
3. The case is DISMISSED with prejudice.
4. The Clerk is directed to close this case.
DONE and ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
