LEWIS
v.
MAVIS TIRE AND AUTO CORP
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.
A pro se plaintiff's federal civil case was transferred from the Southern District of New York to the Southern District of Florida. The magistrate judge recommended dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) screening, and the district judge adopted that recommendation without objections, dismissing the case without prejudice.
The district court adopted and affirmed the magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation, dismissing the case without prejudice. All pending motions were denied as moot, and the case was closed.
“After screening the First Amended Complaint [ECF No. 16] under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), Magistrate Judge Strauss determined the case should be dismissed”
Establishes the basis for the magistrate judge's recommendation to dismiss under the in forma pauperis screening statute.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiff Lewis initiated this cause in the Southern District of New York and subsequently transferred it to the Southern District of Florida under 28…
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
THIS CAUSE was initiated in the Southern District of New York. [ECF No. 1]. The case was subsequently transferred to this District under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). [ECF No. 7]. Upon transfer, the case was assigned to United States Magistrate Judge Jared M. Strauss pursuant to Administrative Order 2025-11 [ECF No. 8], and pro se Plaintiff moved to proceed in forma pauperis [ECF No. 12].
After screening the First Amended Complaint [ECF No. 16] under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), Magistrate Judge Strauss determined the case should be dismissed and directed the Clerk to randomly reassign the case to a United States District Judge for disposition. [ECF No. 17]. In addition, Judge Strauss issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”), recommending the case be dismissed and that all pending motions be denied as moot. [ECF No. 18].
The Clerk re-assigned the case to the undersigned, who has carefully considered the R&R. [See ECF No. 19]. No objections to the R&R were filed during the 14-day objection period. Upon due consideration of the R&R, the filings, the applicable law, and the record, the Court ADOPTS and AFFIRMS the Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 18].
LEGAL STANDARD
After conducting a review of the findings and recommendations, a district judge may accept, reject, or modify a magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). If a party files a timely and specific objection to a finding of fact by a magistrate judge, the district court must
1
conduct a de novo review with respect to that factual issue. Stokes v. Singletary, 952 F. 2d 1567, 1576 (11th Cir. 1992). The district court reviews legal conclusions de novo, even in the absence of an objection. See Cooper-Houston v. S. Ry. Co., 37 F. 3d 603, 604 (11th Cir. 1994); Ashworth v. Glades Cnty. Bd. of Cnty. Comm’rs, 379 F. Supp. 3d 1244, 1246 (M.D. Fla. 2019). To the extent a party fails to object to parts 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)).
CONCLUSION
In the absence of any objection and after reviewing the factual allegations and legal conclusions, the Court finds no clear error. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED:
1. The Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 18] is ADOPTED and made a part of this Order for all purposes.
2. This case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
3. All pending motions, including ECF No. 12, are DENIED AS MOOT.
4. The Clerk is directed to CLOSE this case.
DONE AND ORDERED in the Southern District of Florida on June 23, 2025.
DAVID S. LEIBOWITZ
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
cc: counsel of record
2
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Marina Cooper-Houston v. S. Ry. Co., 37 F.3d 603 (11th Cir. 1994)
- Durham Eldon Stokes v. Singletary, 952 F.2d 1567 (11th Cir. 1992)
- In re Mad Toyz III, LLC (M.D. Fla. 2026)