MADELINE HUGHES HAIKALA UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
MEMORANDUM OPINION
On April 11, 2019, the magistrate judge filed a report in which he recommended that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b), the Court dismiss this action without prejudice for failing to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. (Doc. 9). Although the magistrate judge advised the plaintiff of his right to file specific written objections within 14 days, the Court has not received objections.
A district court "may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). A district court reviews legal conclusions in a report de novo and reviews for plain error factual findings to which no objection is made. Garvey v. Vaughn, 993 F.2d 776, 779 n.9 (11th Cir. 1993); see also LoConte v. Dugger, 847 F.2d 745, 749 (11th Cir. 1988); Macort v. Prem, Inc., 208 Fed. Appx. 781, 784 (11th Cir. 2006).
Having reviewed and considered Mr. Patterson's amended complaint and the magistrate judge's report, the Court adopts that report and accepts the magistrate judge's recommendation. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b), the Court will dismiss this action without prejudice for failing to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
DONE this 31st day of May, 2019.
/s/_________
MADELINE HUGHES HAIKALA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE