NIHAL MICHAEL GAUTAM
v.
BROWARD COUNTY, ET AL.
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 adopted the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, dismissing plaintiff Nihal Michael Gautam's Second Amended Complaint without prejudice against Broward County and other defendants. The court granted plaintiff leave to file a Third Amended Complaint by November 10, 2025.
The Second Amended Complaint is dismissed without prejudice, and plaintiff is granted leave to file a Third Amended Complaint on or before November 10, 2025, consistent with the Magistrate Judge's recommendations. Failure to timely file the amended complaint will result in closure of the case.
“As no timely objections were filed, the Magistrate Judge's factual findings in the Report [DE 25] are hereby adopted and deemed incorporated into this opinion.”
Establishes the procedural consequence of failing to timely object to a magistrate judge's report.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiff Nihal Michael Gautam filed a Second Amended Complaint against Broward County and other defendants. The Magistrate Judge issued a Report and …
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 cases and more on FLexlaw
THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Augustin-Birch (the “Report”) [DE 25], issued on October 6, 2025. The Court notes that no objections to the Report [DE 25] have been filed, and the time for filing such objections has passed. As no timely objections were filed, the Magistrate Judge’s factual findings in the Report [DE 25] are hereby adopted and deemed incorporated into this opinion. LoConte v. Dugger, 847 F. 2d 745, 749-50 (11th Cir. 1988), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 958 (1988); RTC v. Hallmark Builders, Inc., 996 F. 2d 1144, 1149 (11th Cir. 1993).
Although no timely objections were filed, the Court has conducted a de novo review of the Report [DE 25] and record and is otherwise fully advised in the premises. The Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s analysis and conclusions.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: 1. The Report [DE 25] is hereby ADOPTED and APPROVED; 2. The Second Amended Complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE; 3. Plaintiff is granted leave to file a Third Amended Complaint, consistent with Judge Augustin-Birch’s October 6, 2025 Report and Recommendation, on or before November 10, 2025. Failure to do so will result in the Court closing the case.
4. The Clerk shall MAIL a copy of this Order to Plaintiff at the address below. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Fort Lauderdale, Broward County, Florida, this 20th day of October, 2025.
: “4 if % f ? f tne i ye Zo #4 v Paty 4 ‘4 ase Af
VILLIAM P. DIMITROULEAS
United States District Judge
Copies furnished to: Counsel of record Magistrate Judge Augustin-Birch Nihal Michael Gautam 840 SW 6th St. Hallandale, FL 33009
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Resolution Tr. Corp. v. Hallmark Builders, Inc., 996 F.2d 1144 (11th Cir. 1993)
- LoConte v. Dugger, 488 U.S. 958 (U.S. 1988)