MILTON BERNARD
v.
AUTOMAX
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 Report and Recommendation dismissing plaintiff Milton Bernard's complaint against Automax without prejudice. The court granted leave to file an amended complaint by December 1, 2025.
The District Court adopted the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, dismissed the complaint without prejudice, and granted plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint by December 1, 2025.
[1] A magistrate judge's factual findings are adopted and deemed incorporated into a court's opinion when no timely objections are filed.
[2] A court may conduct a de novo review of a magistrate judge's report even in the absence of objections.
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“As no timely objections were filed, the Magistrate Judge's factual findings in the Report [DE 5] are hereby adopted and deemed incorporated into this opinion.”
Establishes the standard whereby a magistrate judge's findings are adopted when no objections are timely filed.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe opinion does not detail the underlying facts of the case, referring instead to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation for factual findin…
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 Dismissal Of Complaint cases and more on FLexlaw
THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Strauss (the “Report”) [DE 5], issued on October 24, 2025. The Court notes that no objections to the Report [DE 5] have been filed, and the time for filing such objections has passed. As no timely objections were filed, the Magistrate Judge’s factual findings in the Report [DE 5] are hereby adopted and deemed incorporated into this opinion. LoConte v. Dugger, 847 F. 2d 745, 749-50 (11th Cir. 1988), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 958 (1988); RTC v. Hallmark Builders, Inc., 996 F. 2d 1144, 1149 (11th Cir. 1993).
Although no timely objections were filed, the Court has conducted a de novo review of the Report [DE 5] and record and is otherwise fully advised in the premises. The Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s analysis and conclusions.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: 1. The Report [DE 5] is hereby ADOPTED and APPROVED; 2. The Complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE; 3. Plaintiff is granted leave to file an Amended Complaint, consistent with Judge Strauss’ October 24, 2025 Report and Recommendation, on or before December 1, 2025. Failure to do so will result in the Court closing the case.
4. The Clerk shall EMAIL a copy of this Order to Plaintiff at the address below. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Fort Lauderdale, Broward County, Florida, this 10th day of November, 2025.
: “4 if % f ? f tne i ye Zo #4 v Paty 4 ‘4 ase Af
VILLIAM P. DIMITROULEAS
United States District Judge
Copies furnished to: Counsel of record Magistrate Judge Strauss Milton Bernard at email address: [email protected]
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Resolution Tr. Corp. v. Hallmark Builders, Inc., 996 F.2d 1144 (11th Cir. 1993)
- LoConte v. Dugger, 488 U.S. 958 (U.S. 1988)