PERRY
v.
LOCKHART, MORRIS & MONTGOMERY, INC.
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 Perry's case against Lockhart, Morris & Montgomery, Inc. without prejudice due to the plaintiff's failure to maintain valid contact information, with mail repeatedly being returned as undeliverable.
The Court adopted the Magistrate Judge's recommendation and dismissed the case without prejudice for failure to prosecute, finding that the plaintiff failed to maintain valid contact information despite mail being repeatedly returned.
[1] A district court may accept, reject, or modify a magistrate judge's report and recommendation.
[2] In the absence of specific objections to a magistrate judge's report, a district judge is not required to review factual findings 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“After conducting a careful and complete review of the findings and recommendations, a district judge may accept, reject or modify the magistrate judge's report and recommendation.”
Establishes the standard of review for magistrate judge recommendations under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMail addressed to the plaintiff was returned as undeliverable on October 2, 2024. The plaintiff did not provide an updated address or resend mail to c…
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 Failure To Prosecute cases and more on FLexlaw
This matter is before the Court on consideration of the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. #7), filed September 23, 2024, recommending that the case be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute by not maintaining valid contact information. On October 2, 2024, mail was returned marked as undeliverable, and mail was not resent to the address provided. (Doc. #8.) No objections have been filed and the time to do so has expired. After conducting a careful and complete review of the findings and recommendations, a district judge may accept, reject or modify the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Williams v. Wainwright, 681 F. 2d 732 (11th Cir. 1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1112 (1983). In the absence of specific objections, there is no requirement that a district judge review factual findings de novo, Garvey v. Vaughn, 993 F. 2d 776, 779 n.9 (lith Cir. 1993), and the court may accept, reject or modify, in whole or in part, the findings and recommendations. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) (1). After conducting an independent examination of the file and noting that mail has been returned repeatedly with no updated address provided, the Court accepts the Report and Recommendation of the magistrate judge. Accordingly, it is now ORDERED: 1. The Report and Recommendation (Doc. #7) is hereby adopted, and the findings incorporated herein.
2. The Clerk shall enter judgment dismissing the case
without prejudice, terminate all pending motions and deadlines, and close the file. DONE and ORDERED at Fort Myers, Florida, this 15th day of October 2024.
\ P< p
E. STEELE
Sq IOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Copies: Hon. Kyle C. Dudek United States Magistrate Judge Counsel of Record Unrepresented parties
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Garvey v. Vaughn, 993 F.2d 776 (11th Cir. 1993)
- Williams v. Louie L. Wainwright, 681 F.2d 732 (11th Cir. 1982)