FLOYD
v.
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
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's complaint without prejudice due to plaintiff's failure to pay the filing fee or timely file an in forma pauperis motion. The court conducted de novo review and found the magistrate judge's analysis well-reasoned and correct.
The court adopted the magistrate judge's report and recommendation and dismissed the complaint without prejudice. The court found Judge Louis' analysis well-reasoned and correct in recommending dismissal based on plaintiff's failure to satisfy filing fee requirements or file a timely IFP motion.
“the parties have not consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction at this time”
Establishes the basis for the magistrate judge's finding that she lacked authority to issue a dispositive order
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiff Floyd filed a complaint against the Department of Agriculture but did not pay the filing fee or timely submit an in forma pauperis (IFP) mot…
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 Dispositive Order cases and more on FLexlaw
THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Magistrate Judge Lauren Louis' Report and Recommendation (“R&R”), ECF No. [8]. This matter was originally assigned to Judge Louis pursuant to Administrative Order 2025-11 and, therefore, Judge Louis conducted a review of the record sua sponte. In her review of the record, Judge Louis determined that she did not have authority to issue a dispositive order, finding that “the parties have not consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction at this time.” ECF No. [7]. Accordingly, on August 4, 2025, Judge Louis issued an R&R recommending that Plaintiff's Complaint be dismissed without prejudice based on Plaintiff's failure to either pay the filing fee or timely file an IFP Motion. See ECF No. [8]. The R&R advised Plaintiff that she had “fourteen (14) days from the date of being served with a copy of this Report and Recommendation within which to file written objections, if any, with this Court." Id. at 3. To date, Plaintiff has filed no objections, nor has Plaintiff sought additional time to file objections. The Court has, nonetheless, conducted a de novo review of the R&R and 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)).
Case No. 25-cv-22756-BLOOM/Louis
Upon review, the Court finds Judge Louis' R&R to be well reasoned and correct. The Court agrees with the analysis in the R&R and concludes that Plaintiff's Complaint must be dismissed without prejudice for the reasons set forth therein.
For the foregoing reasons, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
1. The R&R, ECF No. [8], is ADOPTED; 2. The Complaint, ECF No. [1], is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE; 3. All pending motions are DENIED AS MOOT; and
4. The Clerk shall CLOSE this case.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, August 19, 2025.
BETH BLOOM
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Copies furnished to: Counsel of record
Charmaine Floyd 1243 N.W. 100 Terrence Miami, FL 33147