Love v. Miller et al, No. 1:2014cv02859 - Document 13 (N.D. Ga. 2015)
Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING the 11 Final Report and Recommendation. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Complaint 1 is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Signed by Judge William S. Duffey, Jr on 5/4/2015. (anc) Modified on 5/5/2015 in order to correct file date (anc).
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Love v. Miller et al Doc. 13 Dockets.Justia.com On November 18, 2014, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Change of Address [8], which indicated that Plaintiff had been released from incarceration. On November 20, 2014, the Magistrate Judge entered an Order [9] requiring Plaintiff, within thirty (30) days, to submit a non-prisoner IFP application, and to file an amended complaint that complied with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (November 20, 2014, Order, at 2-3). Plaintiff did not comply with the Magistrate Judge’s November 20, 2014, Order. On January 8, 2015, the Magistrate Judge recommended that the Court dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint for failure to comply with the Order. (R&R at 2). Plaintiff did not file any objections to the R&R. II. DISCUSSION A. Legal Standard After conducting a careful and complete review of the findings and recommendations, a district judge may accept, reject, or modify a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Williams v. Wainwright, 681 F.2d 732, 732 (11th Cir. 1982), cert denied, 459 U.S. 1112 (1983). A district judge “shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). With respect to those findings and 2 recommendations to which a party has not asserted objections, the district judge must conduct a plain error review of the record. United States v. Slay, 714 F.2d 1093, 1095 (11th Cir. 1983). B. Analysis As Plaintiff has not objected to the Magistrate Judge’s R&R, the Court reviews the Magistrate Judge’s findings and recommendations for plain error. See Slay 714 F.2d at 1095. The Magistrate Judge found that Plaintiff failed to comply with the November 20, 2014, Order, and properly recommended that the Court dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint. See LR 41.3(A)(2), NDGa. The Court finds no plain error in Magistrate Judge’s findings and recommendation. See Slay, 714 F.2d at 1095. 3 III. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Justin S. Anand’s Final Report and Recommendation [11] is ADOPTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Complaint [1] is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. SO ORDERED this 4th day of May, 2015. _______________________________ WILLIAM S. DUFFEY, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 4
]]>
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.
