Jordan v. The United States Department of Education et al, No. 2:2017cv00683 - Document 11 (M.D. Fla. 2018)

Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER adopting 10 Report and Recommendations. The Clerk shall enter judgment dismissing the case without prejudice, terminate all deadlines, and close the file. Signed by Judge John E. Steele on 10/25/2018. (RKR)

Download PDF
Jordan v. The United States Department of Education et al Doc. 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FORT MYERS DIVISION ANTHONY M. JORDAN, Plaintiff, v. Case No: 2:17-cv-683-FtM-99CM THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION and THE UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH FLORIDA, Defendants. OPINION AND ORDER This matter is before the Court on consideration of the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. #10), filed October 4, 2018, recommending that the case be dismissed without prejudice. 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 (11th Cir. 1993), and the court may accept, reject or modify, in whole or in part, the findings and recommendations. 28 U.S.C. § Dockets.Justia.com 636(b)(1). 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). Plaintiff's Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs (Doc. #2) was denied and plaintiff was directed to pay the filing fee and file an amended complaint. (Doc. #8.) Plaintiff did not comply, and an Order (Doc. #9) to show cause was issued on June 20, 2018. Plaintiff did not respond. The Magistrate Judge recommends that plaintiff has failed to demonstrate question subject presented frivolous, and matter by barred the by jurisdiction because Bivens 1 claim the statute of is the federal implausible limitations. and The Magistrate Judge recommends that any claim seeking to challenge the Higher Education Technical Amendments of 1991 as a violation of the ex post facto clause is also frivolous. Judge further recommends that plaintiff’s The Magistrate allegations are insufficient to state a claim for breach of contract, conversion or negligence. After conducting an independent examination of the file and upon due consideration of the Report and Recommendation, 1 Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). - 2 - Agents of Fed. Bureau of the Court accepts the Report and Recommendation of the magistrate judge. Accordingly, it is now ORDERED: 1. The Report and Recommendation (Doc. #10) is hereby adopted and the findings incorporated herein. 2. The Clerk shall enter judgment dismissing the case without prejudice, terminate all pending motions and deadlines, and close the file. DONE and ORDERED at Fort Myers, Florida, this of October, 2018. Copies: Hon. Carol Mirando United States Magistrate Judge Counsel of Record Unrepresented parties - 3 - 25th 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.