MARLA PITTENGER
v.
RON DESANTIS, 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 court adopted the Magistrate Judge's recommendation to deny the motion to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the case.
[1] When a party fails to timely object to a magistrate judge's factual and legal conclusions, the party waives the right to challenge those conclusions on appeal, and the di…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“It does not appear that Congress intended to require district court review of a magistrate [judge's] factual or legal conclusions, under a de novo or any other standard, when neither party objects to those findings.”
Court citation to Thomas v. Arn explaining that de novo review is not required for unobjected findings.
Plaintiff filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis, which the Magistrate Judge recommended be denied. Plaintiff failed to file objections to the Ma…
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 Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 cases and more on FLexlaw
THIS CAUSE is before the Court on the Amended Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 6; Report), entered by the Honorable Philip Lammens, United States Magistrate Judge, on November 19, 2025. In the Report, the Magistrate Judge recommends that Plaintiffs Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Dkt. No. 2) be denied and this case be dismissed. See Report at 1, 5. Plaintiff has failed to file objections to the Report, and the time for doing so has now passed.
The Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). Pursuant to Rule 72, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (Rule(s)), the Court "must determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge's disposition that has been properly objected to." See Rule 72(b)(3); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). However, a party waives the right to challenge on appeal any unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions. See 11th Cir. R. 3-1.¹ As such, the Court reviews those portions of the Magistrate Judge's findings to which no objection was filed for plain error and only if necessary, in the interests of justice. See id.; see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985) (“It does not appear that Congress intended to require district court review of a magistrate [judge's] factual or legal conclusions, under a de novo or any other standard, when neither party objects to those findings."); Dupree v. Warden, 715 F. 3d 1295, 1304-05 (11th Cir. 2013) (recommending the adoption of what would become 11th Circuit Rule 3-1 so that district courts do not have “to spend significant amounts of time and resources reviewing every issue—whether objected to or not.").
Upon independent review of the file and for the reasons stated in the Magistrate Judge's Report, the Court will accept and adopt the legal and factual conclusions recommended by the Magistrate Judge. Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED:
1. The Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 6) is ADOPTED as the opinion of the Court.
2. Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Dkt. No. 2) is DENIED.
3. This case is DISMISSED.
4. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment dismissing this case, terminate all pending motions and deadlines as moot, and close the file.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers this 9th day of December, 2025.
MARCIA MORALES HOWARD
United States District Judge ja
Copies to:
Counsel of Record Pro Se Party
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (U.S. 1985)
- Dupree v. Warden, Attorney Gen., State of Ala., 715 F.3d 1295 (11th Cir. 2013)