# Brown v. Florida Department of Revenue

> District Court, M.D. Florida · May 21, 2024

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10116066

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, M.D. Florida
- **Decided:** May 21, 2024
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10116066

## Opinion text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
DEVON A BROWN,

Plaintiff,
v. Case No. 8:24-cv-385-WFJ-NHA

ANN COFFIN,

Defendant.
___________________________________/

ORDER
This cause comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s renewed application to
proceed in forma pauperis (Dkt. 11) and the amended complaint (Dkt. 10). The
United States Magistrate Judge issued a report recommending that the motion be
denied without prejudice and that the amended complaint be dismissed without
prejudice. Dkt. 12. The time for filing objections has passed.
The Court reviews the legal conclusions de novo in the absence of an
objection. See LeCroy v. McNeil, 397 F. App’x 554, 556 (11th Cir. 2010) (citation
omitted); Cooper-Houston v. S. Ry. Co., 37 F.3d 603, 604 (11th Cir. 1994). The
magistrate judge found that the amended complaint (Dkt. 10) fails to allege a basis
for federal subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiff’s sole claim seeks to enjoin
Defendant, in her role as Director at the Florida Department of Revenue, Office of
Child Support Enforcement (“FDOR”), from garnishing Plaintiff’s Uber earnings.
Dkt. 10, Dkt. 12 at 3. The report explains why this state claim may not be brought
in federal court. Dkt. 12 at 7-12. After conducting an independent examination of
the file, the Court agrees with the well-reasoned Report and Recommendation and
rules as follows:
1. The Report and Recommendation (Dkt. 12) is adopted, confirmed, and
approved in all respects and made a part of this order.
2. Plaintiff’s renewed motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Dkt. 11) is
denied without prejudice.
3. Plaintiff’s amended complaint (Dkt. 10) is dismissed without prejudice,
subject to the right of Plaintiff to file his exemptions to garnishment with the court
that issued the writ of garnishment.
4. The Clerk is directed to close the case.
DONE AND ORDERED at Tampa, Florida, on May 21, 2024.
ME:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

COPIES FURNISHED TO:
Plaintiff, pro se

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10116066. Public record. Not legal advice.