ASHTON
v.
PARKER HOUSE PROPERTIES, INC.
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 Report and Recommendation dismissing Ashton's action against Parker House Properties, Inc. without prejudice for failure to file an amended complaint as directed. The court found no plain error in the magistrate's recommendation and dismissed the case.
The court adopted the magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation in full and dismissed the action without prejudice. The court found no plain error in the recommendation and therefore accepted it without de novo review.
[1] A district court may accept, reject, or modify a magistrate judge's report and recommendation in whole or in part.
[2] In the absence of specific objections to a magistrate judge's report and recommendation, a district court is not required to review the report de novo.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“In the absence of specific objections, there is no requirement that a district judge review the R&R de novo.”
Establishes the standard of review when a party fails to object to a magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiff Ashton filed an action against Defendant Parker House Properties, Inc. The magistrate judge issued a Report and Recommendation directing Pla…
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
Before the Court is Judge Kyle C. Dudek's Report and Recommendation (“R&R"). (Doc. 7). Judge Dudek recommends that the Court dismiss this action without prejudice because Plaintiff failed to file an amended complaint as directed. Plaintiff has not objected to the R&R, and the time to do so has expired. The R&R is ripe for review.
After conducting a careful and complete review of the findings and recommendations, a district judge “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part," a magistrate judge's R&R. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). In the absence of specific objections, there is no requirement that a district judge review the R&R de novo. See Garvey v. Vaughn, 993 F. 2d 776, 779 n.9 (11th Cir. 1993). Instead, when parties don't object, a district court need only correct plain error as demanded by the interests of justice. See, e.g., Symonette v. V.A. Leasing
Corp., 648 F. App'x 787, 790 (11th Cir. 2016); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150-52 (1985). Plain error exists if (1) “an error occurred”; (2) “the error was plain"; (3) “it affected substantial rights”; and (4) “not correcting the error would seriously affect the fairness of the judicial proceedings." Farley v. Nationwide Mut. Ins., 197 F. 3d 1322, 1329 (11th Cir. 1999).
After careful consideration and an independent review of the case, the Court finds no plain error. So, it accepts and adopts the R&R in full. Accordingly, it is now
ORDERED:
1. Judge Dudek's Report and Recommendation (Doc. 7) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED, and the findings incorporated herein.
2. This action is DISMISSED without prejudice.
3. The Clerk is DIRECTED to deny any pending motions as moot, terminate any deadlines, and close the case.
DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida on September 19, 2024.
SherPolster Rappell
SHERI POLSTER CHAPPELL
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Copies: All Parties of Record
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Garvey v. Vaughn, 993 F.2d 776 (11th Cir. 1993)
- Farley v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 197 F.3d 1322 (11th Cir. 1999)