BROOKS
v.
WHITE
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 court accepted the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation and denied the Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining Order.
Plaintiff filed an Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining Order. The Magistrate Judge issued a Report recommending the motion be denied. No party …
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 Clear Error Standard cases and more on FLexlaw
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [ECF No. 11]
THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation on Plaintiff's Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (the “Report”) [ECF No. 11], issued on September 5, 2025. On August 11, 2025, Defendant filed an Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (the “Motion”) [ECF No. 4]. On September 5, 2025, Judge Maynard issued a Report recommending that the Motion be denied [ECF No. 11 pp. 1, 7]. Objections to the Report were due on September 19, 2025 [ECF No. 11 p. 7]. No party filed objections, and the time to do so has expired [ECF No. 11 p. 7]. [fn 1]
To challenge the findings and recommendations of a magistrate judge, a party must file specific written objections identifying the portions of the proposed findings and recommendation to which objection is made. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a); Heath v. Jones, 863 F. 2d 815, 822 (11th Cir. 1989); Macort v. Prem, Inc., 208 F. App’x 781, 784 (11th Cir. 2006). A district court reviews de
novo those portions of the report to which objection is made and may accept, reject, or modify in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). To the extent a party fails to object to parts of the magistrate judge's report, the Court may accept the recommendation so long as there is no clear error on the face of the record. Macort, 208 F. App’x at 784.
Following appropriate review, the Court finds the well-reasoned Report to contain no clear error of fact or law. For the reasons set forth in the Report [ECF No. 11 pp. 4–7], it is hereby
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
1. The Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 11] is ACCEPTED. 2. The Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining Order [ECF No. 4] is DENIED.
ORDERED in Chambers at Fort Pierce, Florida this 24th day of September 2025.
AILEEN M. CANNON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
cc: counsel of record
[fn 1]: To the extent Plaintiffs purported to object to the Report by amending the complaint, any such effort is procedurally improper; as the Report indicates, and as the Local Rules require, the deadline to file objections to the Report expired on September 19, 2025 [ECF No. 11 p. 7]. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a).