AIDA
v.
MICELUS
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 case without prejudice for failure to establish subject matter jurisdiction and failure to prosecute after plaintiff failed to file a required amended complaint and did not object to the magistrate's findings within the prescribed time.
The court adopted the magistrate judge's report and recommendation in its entirety and dismissed the lawsuit without prejudice, finding the magistrate's report to be thorough, cogent, and compelling with no clear error.
[1] A party must file written objections that specifically identify the portions of a magistrate judge's report to which objection is made and the specific basis for the obje…
[2] Objections to a magistrate judge's report must present supporting legal authority.
Previewing 2 of 6 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“In order to challenge the findings and recommendations of the magistrate judge, a party must file written objections which shall specifically identify the portions of the proposed findings and recommendation to which objection is made and the specific basis for objection.”
Establishes the standard for challenging a magistrate's report
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe magistrate judge ordered plaintiff to file an amended complaint. Plaintiff failed to comply with this order. Plaintiff was given until May 30, 202…
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 De Novo Determination cases and more on FLexlaw
THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on United States Magistrate Judge Jared Strauss's Report and Recommendation (“the R&R”), recommending that this action be dismissed without prejudice and all pending motions be denied as moot. [ECF No. 7]. Judge Strauss recommended that Plaintiff's case be dismissed for failure to establish subject matter jurisdiction and failure to prosecute as he ordered Plaintiff to file an amended complaint, which Plaintiff did not do. [Id.]. Plaintiff had until May 30, 2025, to file objections to Judge Strauss's R&R and has failed to do so.
“In order to challenge the findings and recommendations of the magistrate judge, a party must file written objections which shall specifically identify the portions of the proposed findings and recommendation to which objection is made and the specific basis for objection.” Macort v. Prem, Inc., 208 F. App'x 781, 783 (11th Cir. 2006) (cleaned up). The objections must also present “supporting legal authority.”S.D. Fla. L. Mag. J.R. 4(b). Once a district court receives “objections meeting the specificity requirement set out above,” it must “make a de novo determination of 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.” Macort, 208 F. App’x at 783–84 (cleaned up). To the extent a party fails to object to parts of the magistrate judge's report, those portions are reviewed for clear error. Id. at 784 (cleaned up).
The Plaintiff has not submitted any objections to Judge Strauss's report and recommendation, and the time to do so has passed. As such, the Court has reviewed the R&R for clear error only. Upon this review, the Court finds not only no clear error but also notes that Judge Strauss's report is thorough, cogent, and compelling. The Court adopts the report and recommendation in its entirety and dismisses this lawsuit without prejudice.
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:
1. Magistrate Judge Strauss's R&R [ECF No. 7] is AFFIRMED AND ADOPTED.
2. This matter is DISMISSED without prejudice.
3. All pending motions are DENIED as moot.
4. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE this case.
DONE AND ORDERED in the Southern District of Florida on June 2, 2025.
DAVID S. LEIBOWITZ
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE cc: counsel of record