CHARLES J. EVANS
v.
PAMELA J. HELTON, ROXANN E. EVANS/OLIVER, GARY J. COONEY, CIRCUIT JUDGE JASON J. NIMETH, FIFTH LAKE COUNTY COURT
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.
A district court reviewed a magistrate judge's report and recommendation to dismiss plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint for lack of a viable claim. Finding no plain error and no objections from the plaintiff, the court adopted the recommendation and dismissed the complaint without prejudice.
The district court adopted the magistrate judge's recommendation in full and dismissed the Second Amended Complaint without prejudice. The court found no plain error warranting correction or de novo review.
[1] A district judge may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, a magistrate judge's report and recommendation.
[2] In the absence of specific objections to a magistrate judge's report and recommendation, a district judge 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 report and recommendation de novo.”
Establishes the standard of review when a party fails to object to a magistrate judge's R&R
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiff Charles J. Evans filed a Second Amended Complaint against defendants Pamela J. Helton, Roxann E. Evans/Oliver, Gary J. Cooney, Circuit Judge…
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
Before the Court is United States Magistrate Judge Philip R. Lammens' Report and Recommendation (“R&R”). (Doc. 12.) Judge Lammens recommends dismissing the Second Amended Complaint (Doc. 11) without prejudice for lack of a viable claim. (Id.) Plaintiff did not object, and the time to do so passed.
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 report and recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). In the absence of specific objections, there is no requirement that a district judge review the report and recommendation 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. It accepts and adopts the R&R in full.
Accordingly, it is now ORDERED:
The Report and Recommendation (Doc. 12) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED and the findings incorporated herein.
(1) The Second Amended Complaint (Doc. 11) is DISMISSED without prejudice.
(2) The Clerk is DIRECTED to enter judgment accordingly, deny any pending motions as moot, terminate any deadlines, and close the case.
ENTERED in Fort Myers, Florida on January 9, 2026.
Kyle C. Dudek United States District Judge
2