MARCIA MORALES HOWARD United States District Judge
ORDER
THIS CAUSE is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 10; Report), entered by the Honorable James R. Klindt, United States Magistrate Judge, on June 16, 2016. In the Report, Judge Klindt recommends that Plaintiff's Affidavit of Indigency (Dkt. No. 4) and Plaintiff's Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs (Dkt. No. 3), which the Court collectively construes as a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, be denied, and this action be dismissed without prejudice for a lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See Report at 6. On July 5, 2016, Plaintiff filed objections to the Report. See Objections to Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 11; Objections).
The Court "may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). If no specific objections to findings of fact are filed, the district court is not required to conduct a de novo review of those findings. See Garvey v. Vaughn, 993 F.2d 776, 779 n.9 (11th Cir. 1993); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). However, the district court must review legal conclusions de novo. See Cooper-Houston v. Southern Ry. Co., 37 F.3d 603, 604 (11th Cir. 1994); United States v. Rice, No. 2:07-mc-8-FtM-29SPC, 2007 WL 1428615, at * 1 (M.D. Fla. May 14, 2007).
Upon independent review of the file and for the reasons stated in Judge Klindt's Report, the Court will overrule the Objections, and accept and adopt the legal and factual conclusions recommended by the Magistrate Judge.
In doing so the Court notes that shortly after filing the Objections, Plaintiff, without seeking leave of Court, filed an additional amended complaint. See Verified Complaint Amendment 1 (Dkt. No. 14; Proposed Amended Complaint). Although this document is not properly before the Court, in an abundance of caution, before determining whether to accept the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, the Court has considered whether the Proposed Amended Complaint would cure the pleading deficiencies. Having determined it would not, the Court concludes that this action is due to be dismissed. --------
Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED:
1. Plaintiff's Objections to Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 11) are OVERRULED.
2. The Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 10) is ADOPTED as the opinion of the Court.
3. Plaintiff's Affidavit of Indigency (Dkt. No. 4) and Plaintiff's Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs (Dkt. No. 3), that the Court collectively construes as a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, is DENIED.
4. This case is DISMISSED without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
5. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to terminate all deadlines and motions as moot, and close the case.
DONE AND ORDERED at Jacksonville, Florida, this 1st day of August, 2016.
/s/_________
MARCIA MORALES HOWARD
United States District Judge i34 Copies to: The Honorable James R. Klindt
United States Magistrate Judge Pro se Party