M-Y SCRATCH, LLC
v.
M/Y SOMETHING ABOUT MERI
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 a magistrate judge's recommendation to dismiss an action brought by M-Y Scratch, LLC without prejudice because the artificial entity failed to retain counsel as required and did not timely object to the magistrate's report and recommendation.
The court adopted the magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation in its entirety and dismissed the lawsuit without prejudice because plaintiff failed to file timely objections and the magistrate's findings were thorough and sound.
“In order to challenge the findings and recommendations of the magistrate judge, a party must file written objections which shall specifically identify the portions of the proposed findings and recommendation to which objection is made and the specific basis for objection.”
Establishes the procedural requirement for challenging magistrate recommendations that plaintiff failed to meet
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiff M-Y Scratch, LLC, an artificial entity, was notified by Magistrate Judge Strauss that it must be represented by an attorney in the litigatio…
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 De Novo Determination cases and more on FLexlaw
THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on United States Magistrate Judge Jared Strauss's Report and Recommendation (“the R&R”), recommending that this action be dismissed without prejudice and all pending motions be denied as moot. [ECF No. 8]. Judge Strauss notified Plaintiff, an artificial entity, that it must be represented by an attorney in this matter and that failure for counsel to appear on behalf of plaintiff would result in a dismissal without further notice. [ECF No. 6]. Plaintiff had until May 27, 2025, to file objections to Judge Strauss's R&R and has failed to do so.
“In order to challenge the findings and recommendations of the magistrate judge, a party must file written objections which shall specifically identify the portions of the proposed findings and recommendation to which objection is made and the specific basis for objection.” Macort v. Prem, Inc., 208 F. App'x 781, 783 (11th Cir. 2006) (cleaned up). The objections must also present “supporting legal authority.” S.D. Fla. L. Mag. J.R. 4(b). Once a district court receives “objections meeting the specificity requirement set out above,” it must “make a de novo determination of those portions of the report to which objection is made and may accept, reject, or modify in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” Macort, 208 F. App’x at 783–84 (cleaned up). To the extent a party fails to object to parts of the magistrate judge's report, those portions are reviewed for clear error. Id. at 784 (cleaned up).
The Plaintiff has not submitted any objections to Judge Strauss's report and recommendation, and the time to do so has passed. As such, the Court has reviewed the R&R for clear error only. Upon this review, the Court finds not only no clear error but also notes that Judge Strauss's report is thorough, cogent, and compelling. The Court adopts the report and recommendation in its entirety and dismisses this lawsuit without prejudice.
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:
1. Magistrate Judge Strauss's R&R [ECF No. 8] is AFFIRMED AND ADOPTED. 2. This matter is DISMISSED without prejudice. 3. All pending motions are DENIED as moot. 4. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE this case.
DONE AND ORDERED in the Southern District of Florida on May 28, 2025.
cc: counsel of record