CARABILLO PATERFAMILLIAS
v.
KUYKENDALL
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 reviewed a magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation dismissing Carabillo Paterfamillias's action as frivolous. Finding no plain error and no objections from plaintiff, the court accepted the recommendation in full and dismissed the case.
The district court adopted the magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation in full and dismissed the action. The court found no plain error in the recommendation and determined that dismissal was appropriate.
“In the absence of specific objections, there is no requirement that a district judge review the R & R de novo.”
Establishes the standard of review when a party does not object to a magistrate judge's recommendation.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiff Carabillo Paterfamillias filed suit against defendants Jillian Marie Kuykendall, Peter Allen Bell, Lisa Spader Porter, and Charlotte County …
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 Magistrate Judge'S Report And Recommendation Review cases and more on FLexlaw
Before the Court is Judge Kyle C. Dudek's Report and Recommendation (“R & R"). (Doc. 11). Judge Dudek recommends that this action be dismissed as frivolous. Plaintiff has not objected to the R & R, and the time to do so has expired. The R & R is ripe for review.
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 R & R. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). In the absence of specific objections, there is no requirement that a district judge review the R & R 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. So, it accepts and adopts the R & R in full. Accordingly, it is now
ORDERED:
1. Judge Dudek's Report and Recommendation (Doc. 11) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED, and the findings incorporated herein.
2. This action is DISMISSED.
3. The Clerk is DIRECTED to deem any pending motions as moot, terminate all deadlines, and close the case.
DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida on August 2, 2024.
Sheri Polster Rappell SHERI POLSTER CHAPPELL UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Copies: All Parties of Record
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Garvey v. Vaughn, 993 F.2d 776 (11th Cir. 1993)
- Farley v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 197 F.3d 1322 (11th Cir. 1999)