Vereen v. Unnamed Defendant, No. 1:2014cv04013 - Document 8 (N.D. Ga. 2015)
Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING 6 Final Report and Recommendation ; plaintiff's complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE; DENYING 4 Motion for Writ of Certiorari. Signed by Judge William S. Duffey, Jr on 5/18/2015. (adg)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Vereen v. Unnamed Defendant Doc. 8 Dockets.Justia.com Plaintiff’s “Complaint” does not appear to contain a request for relief, and it is unclear whether, in sending the letter, Plaintiff intended to initiate a civil action. On December 22, 2014, the Magistrate Judge ordered [2] Plaintiff to submit, within thirty (30) days of the date of the order: (1) a document titled “complaint” that contains a short and plain statement of his claims, facts supporting his claims, defendants’ names, and the relief he seeks; and (2) either the $400 filing and administrative fee or an application to proceed in forma pauperis. (December 22, 2014, Order, at 1). On January 14, 2015, Plaintiff filed his Application for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis [3] (“IFP Application”) and his Motion, in which Plaintiff appears to assert that “Publishing Clearing House” wrongfully invested $11 million of Plaintiff’s money. (Motion at 2). On January 21, 2015, the Magistrate Judge granted Plaintiff’s IFP Application. On February 12, 2015, the Magistrate Judge, noting that Plaintiff failed to file a complaint that complied with the Magistrate Judge’s December 22, 2014, Order, recommended that the Court dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint without prejudice. (R&R at 2). Plaintiff did not file any objections to the R&R. 2 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 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 Plaintiff did not object to the Magistrate Judge’s R&R, the Court thus 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 December 22, 2014, Order, and recommended that the Court dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint. See LR 41.3(A)(2), NDGa. The Court finds no plain error 3 in the Magistrate Judge’s findings and recommendation. See Slay, 714 F.2d at 1095. III. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Linda T. Walker’s Final Report and Recommendation [6] is ADOPTED IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Complaint [1] is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Writ of Certiorari [9] is DENIED.1 SO ORDERED this 18th day of May, 2015. _______________________________ WILLIAM S. DUFFEY, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 1 Plaintiff’s Motion, while docketed as a motion, does not seek any specific relief or request any specific action from the Court. 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.
