Roswitha Ann Savoie v. Ric Bradshaw, Sheriff, et al, No. 14-10370 (11th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 14-10370 Date Filed: 09/17/2015 Page: 1 of 3 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 14-10370 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ D.C. Docket No. 9:13-cv-80517-WJZ-1 ROSWITHA ANN SAVOIE, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus RIC BRADSHAW, SHERIFF, JEROME GOLDEN CENTER, et al, Defendants-Appellants. ________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida ________________________ (September 17, 2015) Before JORDAN, JILL PRYOR, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Case: 14-10370 Date Filed: 09/17/2015 Page: 2 of 3 Roswitha Savoie appeals the dismissal of her suit on her own behalf against various defendants in the Palm Beach Sheriff’s Office and the Jerome Golden Center for violations of her constitutional rights.1 The district court dismissed Savoie’s case after she sought to proceed in forma pauperis on behalf of her minor son. The magistrate judge, having previously granted Savoie’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis on her own behalf, had recommended that her motion on behalf of her son be denied. However, the district court, stating that it was approving, adopting, and ratifying the Report and Recommendation, denied the motion to proceed in forma pauperis on behalf of her son and also dismissed the entire case. The court did not explain its decision; and the Report and Recommendation had not addressed the merits of Savoie’s claims on her own behalf. In fact, as mentioned earlier, the magistrate judge had granted Savoie’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis on her own behalf. A district court is free to “accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part” the magistrate judge’s findings or recommendations. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). In other words, the court is not bound to the decision of the magistrate judge. But when a district court fails to sufficiently explain its rulings, we will remand the 1 Savoie had also filed related claims on behalf of her minor son, Savoie-Elston. Her appeal of the district court’s order dismissing the claims on behalf of her son was dismissed by order of this Court dated August 5, 2014. 2 Case: 14-10370 Date Filed: 09/17/2015 Page: 3 of 3 case. Danley v. Allen, 480 F.3d 1090, 1091–92 (11th Cir. 2007). Here, there is no explanation of the dismissal, which deprives this court of the ability to review. And, because the magistrate judge had previously granted in forma pauperis status to Savoie on her own, deeming the amendments she made to her complaint satisfactory, the decision to dismiss needs explanation. Therefore, we vacate the district court’s decision dismissing this case and remand to the district court for further proceedings. VACATED and REMANDED. 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
