ADAPTIVE MARITIME EXPERTISE INC.
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA FISH AND WILDLIFE CONSERVATION COMMISSION
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 Southern District of Florida dismissed Adaptive Maritime Expertise Inc.'s complaint without prejudice for failure to prosecute, failure to comply with court orders, and failure to state a valid claim, adopting a magistrate judge's recommendation.
The court affirmed and adopted the magistrate judge's recommendation to dismiss the complaint without prejudice on all three grounds: failure to prosecute, failure to comply with court orders, and failure to state a valid claim.
“Failure to file objections timely shall bar the parties from a de novo determination by the District Judge of an issue covered in the R&R and shall bar the parties from attacking on appeal unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions contained in the R&R.”
Establishes the procedural consequence of failing to object to a magistrate judge's recommendation, which was applicable in this case.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe case involved Adaptive Maritime Expertise Inc. filing a complaint against the State of Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. The plai…
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 Objections To R&R cases and more on FLexlaw
without prejudice for failure to prosecute, failure to comply with Court Order, and failure to state a valid claim. (ECF No. 6.) The Court has reviewed the entire file and record, and notes that no objections have been filed to the R&R. Failure to file objections timely shall bar the parties from a de novo determination by the District Judge of an issue covered in the R&R and shall bar the parties from attacking on appeal unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions contained in the R&R. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985); Henley v. Johnson, 885 F. 2d 790, 794 (11th Cir. 1989); 11th Cir. R. 3-1 (2016). Accordingly, after careful consideration, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that: 1. Judge Maynard’s R&R, (ECF No. 6), is AFFIRMED and ADOPTED.
2. Plaintiff's Complaint, (ECF No. 1), is DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to prosecute, failure to comply with Court Order, and failure to state a valid claim. 3. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to CLOSE this case and DENY all pending motions as MOOT. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this day of June, 2025.
JOSE MARTINEZ }
UNITED STATES DISTRICT GE
Copies provided to: Magistrate Judge Maynard Gunnar Christian Beswick, pro se All Counsel of Record