SANDOVAL
v.
AIR PRODUCTS AND CHEMICAL
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The District Court for the Middle District of Florida adopted a magistrate judge's recommendation to dismiss plaintiff Sandoval's complaint against Air Products and Chemical without prejudice, with leave to amend. The court found deficiencies in the original complaint that must be corrected in an amended pleading.
The district court adopted the magistrate judge's report and recommendation in full, dismissing the complaint without prejudice and granting plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint correcting the identified deficiencies by June 24, 2025.
[1] A district court must conduct a de novo determination of portions of a magistrate judge's report and recommendation to which an objection is made.
[2] When no objection is filed to a magistrate judge's report and recommendation, a district court reviews the report for clear error.
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“After conducting a careful and complete review of the findings and recommendations, a district judge may accept, reject, or modify the magistrate judge's report and recommendation.”
Establishes the standard of review for magistrate judge reports under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiff Sandoval filed a complaint against Air Products and Chemical and other defendants. The complaint contained deficiencies identified by Magist…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Magistrate Judge'S Report And Recommendation Review cases and more on FLexlaw
This matter is before the Court on consideration of the report and recommendation of Thomas G. Wilson, United States Magistrate Judge, entered on April 24, 2025. (Doc. 4). Judge Wilson recommends that Plaintiffs complaint (Doc. 1) be dismissed without prejudice, with leave to amend. No objection to the report and recommendation has been filed, and the time to object has expired.
After conducting a careful and complete review of the findings and recommendations, a district judge may accept, reject, or modify the magistrate judge's report and recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Camby v. Davis, 718 F. 2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983); Williams v. Wainwright, 681 F. 2d 732 (11th Cir. 1982). A district court must "make a de novo determination of those portions of the [report and recommendation] to which an objection is made.”28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). When no objection is filed, a court reviews the report and recommendation for clear error. Macort v. Prem, Inc., 208 F. App'x 781, 784 (11th Cir. 2006); Nettles v. Wainwright, 677 F. 2d 404, 409 (5th Cir. 1982).
Upon due consideration of the record, including Judge Wilson's report and recommendation, the Court adopts the report and recommendation in full. Consequently, the complaint is dismissed without prejudice. Plaintiff is granted leave to file an amended complaint to correct the deficiencies identified in the report and recommendation, and should he decide to file an amended complaint, Plaintiff is directed to file a new motion to proceed without costs along with the amended complaint.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED:
(1) Judge Wilson's report and recommendation (Doc. 4) is AFFIRMED and ADOPTED and INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE into this Order for all purposes, including appellate review.
(2) The complaint (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, with leave to amend.
(3) Plaintiff is directed to file an amended complaint and motion to proceed without costs on or before June 24, 2025. Failure to file an amended complaint as directed will result in this Order becoming a final judgment. See Auto. Alignment & Body Serv., Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 953 F. 3d 707, 719-20 (11th Cir. 2020).
DONE and ORDERED in Chambers, in Tampa, Florida, this 27th day of May, 2025.
Jhp.Bl
TOM BARBER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Ennis Nettles v. Louie L. Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404 (5th Cir. 1982)
- Williams v. Louie L. Wainwright, 681 F.2d 732 (11th Cir. 1982)
- Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198 (4th Cir. 1983)