ODIANNA BIEN-AIME DAMUS
v.
JACKSON NORTH MEDICAL CENTER
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 for the Southern District of Florida adopted a magistrate judge's report and recommendation to dismiss plaintiff's complaint without prejudice. The court applied the clear error standard of review applicable when no party objects to a magistrate judge's recommendation.
When no party objects to a magistrate judge's report and recommendation, the district court need only review for clear error rather than conduct a de novo review. Finding no clear error, the court affirmed the magistrate judge's recommendation and dismissed the plaintiff's complaint without prejudice.
“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.”
Establishes the legal standard that de novo review is not required when no objections are filed 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 Odianna Bien-Aime Damus filed a complaint against Jackson North Medical Center. A magistrate judge issued a Report and Recommendation on Oct…
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 comes before the Court upon Magistrate Judge Marty Fulgueira Elfenbein's Report and Recommendation, [ECF No. 7] (“Report”), filed on October 15, 2025. The Report recommends that the Court dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint, [ECF No. 1], without prejudice. The time for objections has passed, and there are no objections to the Report.
When a magistrate judge's "disposition” has been properly objected to, district courts must review the disposition de novo. FED. R. CIv. P. 72(b)(3). When no party has timely objected, however, “the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.” FED. R. CIV. P. 72 advisory committee's note to 1983 addition (citation omitted). Although Rule 72 itself is silent on the standard of review, the Supreme Court has acknowledged Congress's intent was to only require a de novo review where objections have been properly filed—not when neither party objects. See 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.”). In any event, the “[f]ailure to object to the magistrate [judge]'s factual
findings after notice precludes a later attack on these findings.” Lewis v. Smith, 855 F. 2d 736, 738 (11th Cir. 1988) (citing Nettles v. Wainwright, 677 F. 2d 404, 410 (5th Cir. 1982)).
Because there are no objections to the Report, the Court did not conduct a de novo review. Rather, the Court reviewed the Report for clear error. Finding none, it is hereby
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
1. The Report, [ECF No. 6], is AFFIRMED AND ADOPTED. 2. Plaintiff's Complaint, [ECF No. 1], is DISMISSED without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE this case, and any pending motions are
DENIED AS MOOT.
DONE AND ORDERED in Miami, Florida, this 31st day of October, 2025.
RODOLFO A. RUIZ II
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (U.S. 1985)
- Ennis Nettles v. Louie L. Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404 (5th Cir. 1982)
- Lewis v. Smith, 855 F.2d 736 (11th Cir. 1988)