ALFRED DAVIS
v.
MARKENZY LAPONTE, ET AL.

S.D. Fla. | 2025-10-06
No. 25-80521-CIV
District Court, S.D. Florida (2025)

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.

Synopsis

The district court adopted the magistrate judge's report and recommendation, dismissing plaintiff Alfred Davis's action without prejudice for failure to effectuate proper service despite numerous opportunities to do so.


Holding

The district court adopted the magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation and dismissed the action without prejudice for failure to effectuate proper service after being provided numerous opportunities to do so.


Key Quotes

“As no timely objections were filed, the Magistrate Judge's factual findings in the Report [DE 31] are hereby adopted and deemed incorporated into this opinion.”

Establishes the standard that unopposed magistrate judge factual findings are adopted by the district court.

Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Facts & Procedural History

The case involved Alfred Davis as plaintiff against Markenzy Laponte and others as defendants. The plaintiff was provided numerous opportunities to ef…

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.


Opinion of the Court

THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon the September 9, 2025 Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Patrick M. Hunt (the “Report”) [DE 31]. The Court notes that no objections to the Report [DE 31] 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 31] 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 31] 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 31] is hereby ADOPTED and APPROVED; 2. This action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to effectuate proper service after being provided numerous opportunities to do so.

3. The Clerk is DIRECTED to CLOSE this case and DENY AS MOOT any pending motions. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Fort Lauderdale, Broward County, Florida this 3rd day of October, 2025.

: “4 if % f ? f tne i ye Zo #4 v Paty 4 ‘4 ase Af

VILLIAM P. DIMITROULEAS

United States District Judge Copies to: Counsel of record Magistrate Judge Matthewman


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw