GARVIN

v.

APLA HEALTH & WELLNESS

THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Magistrate Judge Enjoliqué Lett's sua sponte review of the docket and Plaintiff's Complaint, ECF No. [1]. After reviewing the docket, Judge Lett determined that Plaintiff had neither paid the required filing fee or filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. See ECF No. [12]. Consequently, Judge Lett issued an Order on August 4, 2025, directing Plaintiff to either pay the filing fee or file a motion to proceed in forma pauperis no later than August 11, 2025. ECF No. [6]. Judge Lett also reserved ruling on Plaintiff's pending motions until Plaintiff complied with the Court's Order. ECF No. [7].

On September 11, 2025, Judge Lett conducted another sua sponte review of the docket and found that Plaintiff had still not complied with the Court's August 4, 2025 Order. ECF No. [12] at 1-2. Accordingly, Judge Lett issued a report and recommendation (“R&R”), recommending that the case be dismissed for failure to comply with the Court's Order. Id. at 2. [fn 1] The R&R also advised the parties that “[w]ithin fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy of this Report and

Case No. 25-cv-23375-BLOOM/Lett

Recommendation, any party may serve and file written objections to any of the above findings and recommendations. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l); S.D. Fla. Mag. R. 4(a). The parties [were further] notified that a failure to timely object waives the right to challenge on appeal the District Court's order based on unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions contained in this Report and Recommendation. 11th Cir. R. 3-1 (2014).” Id. at 2.

"If a party fails to object to any portion of the magistrate judge's report, those portions are reviewed for clear error.” Macort v. Prem, Inc., 208 F. App'x 781, 784 (11th Cir. 2006) (quoting Johnson v. Zema Sys. Corp., 170 F. 3d 734, 739 (7th Cir. 1999)). The portions of the report and recommendation to which an objection is made are reviewed de novo only if those objections "pinpoint the specific findings that the party disagrees with." United States v. Schultz, 565 F. 3d 1353, 1360 (11th Cir. 2009); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); Williams v. McNeil, 557 F. 3d 1287, 1291 (11th Cir. 2009) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)). To date, the parties have not filed objections, nor have they sought additional time to file objections. Nonetheless, the Court has conducted a de novo review of Judge Lett's R&R, the record, and is otherwise fully advised in the premises. See Williams v. McNeil, 557 F. 3d 1287, 1291 (11th Cir. 2009) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)). Upon review, the Court finds Judge Lett's R&R to be well reasoned and correct. The Court therefore agrees with the analysis and concludes that Plaintiff's Complaint is dismissed without prejudice.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:

1. The Report and Recommendation, ECF No. [12], is ADOPTED. 2. This case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE this case. If Plaintiff files a new Complaint, he must do so by opening a new case. 4. To the extent not otherwise disposed of, any scheduled hearings are CANCELED, all pending motions are DENIED AS MOOT, and all deadlines are

Case No. 25-cv-23375-BLOOM/Lett

TERMINATED.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, on September 26, 2025.

Copies to:

David Garvin 1327 E. 83rd Street Apt. 2 Los Angeles, CA 90001 PRO SE

BETH BLOOM UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

[fn 1]: The matter was assigned to Magistrate Judge Lett pursuant to Administrative Order 2025-11. Because Judge Lett did not possess authority to issue a dispositive order in this case, she issued a Report and Recommendation instead.