Hastings v. Inmate Services Corporation, No. 2:2017cv00145 - Document 66 (M.D. Fla. 2018)
Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER denying 50 Motion for Leave to amend complaint; adopting 62 Report and Recommendations. Signed by Judge John E. Steele on 11/27/2018. (RKR)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Hastings v. Inmate Services Corporation Doc. 66 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FORT MYERS DIVISION DAVID HASTINGS, Plaintiff, v. Case No: 2:17-cv-145-FtM-99CM INMATE SERVICES CORPORATION, JOHN DOES, 1 to 100, and JANE DOES, 1 to 100, Defendants. OPINION AND ORDER This matter is before the Court on consideration of the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. #62), filed October 31, 2018, recommending that plaintiff's Objection to Motion to Strike and/or Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint (Doc. #50), construed as a request to amend the complaint, be denied. No objections have been filed and the time to do so has expired. After conducting a careful and complete review of the findings and recommendations, a district judge may accept, reject or modify the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. 636(b)(1); 28 U.S.C. § Williams v. Wainwright, 681 F.2d 732 (11th Cir. 1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1112 (1983). 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 Dockets.Justia.com (11th Cir. 1993), and the court may accept, reject or modify, in whole or in part, the findings and recommendations. 636(b)(1). 28 U.S.C. § The district judge reviews legal conclusions de novo, even in the absence of an objection. See Cooper-Houston v. Southern Ry. Co., 37 F.3d 603, 604 (11th Cir. 1994); Castro Bobadilla v. Reno, 826 F. Supp. 1428, 1431-32 (S.D. Fla. 1993), aff’d, 28 F.3d 116 (11th Cir. 1994) (Table). The Magistrate Judge recommends that plaintiff has not shown good cause to extend the deadline for motions to amend pleadings. The deadline expired on March 15, 2018, and plaintiff did not seek leave to amend until April 27, 2018, and significantly that plaintiff first expressed the desire for a class action suit back in July 2017, but took no action for months. The Magistrate Judge further recommends that the proposed amendment would be futile because it would be subject to dismissal based on plaintiff’s inability to represent a class pro se, and previous denials for the appointment of counsel. Lastly, to the extent plaintiff is seeking the a certification of class, the Magistrate Judge recommends that the request is premature. After conducting an independent examination of the file and upon due consideration of the Report and Recommendation, the Court accepts the Report and Recommendation of the magistrate judge to the extent that the request is untimely, and premature since it also seeks leave of Court to obtain class counsel. - 2 - Accordingly, it is now ORDERED: 1. The Report and Recommendation (Doc. #62) is hereby adopted and the findings incorporated herein. 2. Plaintiff's Objection to Motion to Strike and/or Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint (Doc. #50) construed as a motion to amend the complaint (Doc. #50) is DENIED. DONE and ORDERED at Fort Myers, Florida, this of November, 2018. Copies: Hon. Carol Mirando United States Magistrate Judge Counsel of Record Unrepresented parties - 3 - 27th day
]]>
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.
