JERNAZIAN
v.
WILSCHKE
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 recommendation to dismiss Jernazian's pro se complaint for failure to pay the court filing fee, failure to comply with court orders, and failure to prosecute. The dismissal was without prejudice.
The district court adopted the magistrate judge's recommendation and dismissed the case without prejudice. Finding no clear error in the magistrate judge's findings and conclusion, the court agreed that dismissal was appropriate.
“A district court may accept, reject, or modify a magistrate judge's report and recommendation.”
Establishes the standard of review for magistrate judge reports under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C)
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiff filed a pro se complaint and motion to proceed in forma pauperis on April 3, 2025. The magistrate judge found the motion inadequate and sche…
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 Review cases and more on FLexlaw
THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Panayotta Augustin-Birch (the “Report”). [ECF No. 10]. On April 3, 2025, Plaintiff Tash Jernazian (“Plaintiff”) filed his Complaint, [ECF No. 1], and Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (the “Motion”), [ECF No. 3].
Pursuant to Southern District of Florida Administrative Order 2025-11, Plaintiff's pro se case was assigned to Magistrate Judge Augustin-Birch for timely and efficient resolution. [ECF No. 4]. Judge Augustin-Birch, finding that Plaintiff's Motion did not adequately establish that Plaintiff was impoverished, set a hearing for May 7, 2025. [ECF No. 5]. Plaintiff failed to appear.
On May 13, 2025, Judge Augustin-Birch denied the Motion based on Plaintiff's failure to appear and demonstrate his entitlement to proceed in forma pauperis. [ECF No. 8]. Judge Augustin-Birch directed Plaintiff to pay the filing fee within 14 days of her order and stated that failure to comply could result in the dismissal of the case. Id.
On June 5, 2025, Judge Augustin-Birch issued her Report recommending dismissal of the case "due to Plaintiff's failure to pay the full court filing fee, failure to comply with the Court's Order, and failure to prosecute.” [ECF No. 10]. No party has objected to the Report. On June 5, 2025, the case was reassigned to this Court for an order on the Report.
A district court may accept, reject, or modify a magistrate judge's report and recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The objected portions of the report and recommendation are accorded de novo review 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). Any portions of the report and recommendation to which no specific objection is made are reviewed only for clear error. Liberty Am. Ins. Grp., Inc. v. WestPoint Underwriters, L.L.C., 199 F. Supp. 2d 1271, 1276 (M.D. Fla. 2001); accord Macort v. Prem, Inc., 208 F. App’x 781, 784 (11th Cir. 2006). Given that Plaintiff has not objected to any portion of the Report, the Court reviewed the Report for clear error. Finding no clear error, the Court agrees with Judge Augustin- Birch's findings and conclusion that the case should be dismissed.
CONCLUSION
Therefore, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
(1) The Report and Recommendation, [ECF No. 10], is ADOPTED in full;
(2) This action is DISMISSED without prejudice and CLOSED.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this 16th day of July, 2025.
DARRIN P. GAYLES
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- United States v. Schultz, 565 F.3d 1353 (11th Cir. 2009)
- Liberty Am. Ins. Grp., Inc. v. Westpoint Underwriters, L.L.C., 2001 WL 1850837 (M.D. Fla. 2001)