FIRESTONE FINANCIAL, LLC
v.
FAP LOGISTICS, LLC
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 court adopted the Magistrate Judge's recommendation to deny the motion for default judgment and dismiss the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Plaintiff filed a motion for default judgment. The Magistrate Judge recommended denying the motion and dismissing the case for lack of subject matter …
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 Report And Recommendation cases and more on FLexlaw
THIS CAUSE is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 49; Report) entered by the Honorable Samuel J. Horovitz, United States Magistrate Judge, on October1, 2024. In the Report, Judge Horovitz recommends that the Motion for Default Judgment (Doc. 42) be denied and that this action be dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See Report at 1, 19. No objections to the Report have been filed, and the time for doing so has now passed.
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). Pursuant to Rule 72, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (Rule(s)), the Court “must determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge's disposition that has been properly objected to." See Rule 72(b)(3); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). However, a party waives the right to challenge on appeal any unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions. See 11th Cir. R. 3-1.¹ As such, the Court reviews those portions of the Magistrate Judge's findings to which no objection was filed for plain error and only if necessary, in the interests of justice. See id.; see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985) (“It does not appear that Congress intended to require district court review of a magistrate [judge's] factual or legal conclusions, under a de novo or any other standard, when neither party objects to those findings."); Dupree v. Warden, 715 F. 3d 1295, 1304-05 (11th Cir. 2013) (recommending the adoption of what would become 11th Circuit Rule 3-1 so that district courts do not have “to spend significant amounts of time and resources reviewing every issue—whether objected to or not.").
Upon independent review of the file and for the reasons stated in the Magistrate Judge's Report, the Court will accept and adopt the legal and factual conclusions recommended by the Magistrate Judge. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED:
1. The Report and Recommendation (Doc. 49) is ADOPTED as the opinion of the Court.
2. The Motion for Default Judgment (Doc. 42) is DENIED.
3. This case is DISMISSED without prejudice.
4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to terminate any pending motions and close the file.
DONE AND ORDERED in Jacksonville, Florida this 21st day of October, 2024.
Mania Moules Howand
MARCIA MORALES HOWARD
United States District Judge ja Copies to: Counsel of Record Pro Se Parties
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (U.S. 1985)
- Dupree v. Warden, Attorney Gen., State of Ala., 715 F.3d 1295 (11th Cir. 2013)