Murray v. Garland et al

Filing 4

ORDER adopting 3 Report and Recommendation; dismissing case without prejudice; and directing the Clerk of the Court to enter judgment and close the file. Signed by Judge Marcia Morales Howard on 11/26/2024. (JW)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
JACKSONVILLE DIVISION
PAUL MURRAY,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 3:24-cv-954-MMH-MCR

MERRICK B. GARLAND, et al.,
Defendants.
_____________________________________/
ORDER
THIS CAUSE is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation
(Dkt. No. 3; Report), entered by the Honorable Monte C. Richardson, United
States Magistrate Judge, on November 6, 2024.

In the Report, Judge

Richardson recommends that this case be dismissed without prejudice. See
Report at 2. Plaintiff has failed to file objections to the Report, and the time
for doing so has now passed.
The Court “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).

Pursuant to Rule 72, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (Rule(s)), the Court
“must determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition that
has been properly objected to.” See Rule 72(b)(3); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
-1-

However, a party waives the right to challenge on appeal any unobjected-to
factual and legal conclusions. See 11th Cir. R. 3-1.1 As such, the Court reviews
those portions of the Magistrate Judge’s findings to which no objection was
filed for plain error and only if necessary, in the interests of justice. See id.;
see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985) (“It does not appear that
Congress intended to require district court review of a magistrate [judge’s]
factual or legal conclusions, under a de novo or any other standard, when
neither party objects to those findings.”); Dupree v. Warden, 715 F.3d 1295,
1304-05 (11th Cir. 2013) (recommending the adoption of what would become
11th Circuit Rule 3-1 so that district courts do not have “to spend significant
amounts of time and resources reviewing every issue—whether objected to or
not.”).
Upon independent review of the file and for the reasons stated in the
Magistrate Judge’s Report, the Court will accept and adopt the legal and
factual conclusions recommended by the Magistrate Judge. Accordingly, it is
hereby
ORDERED:
1. The Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 3) is
ADOPTED as the opinion of the Court.

1 The Magistrate Judge properly informed the parties of the time period for objecting

and the consequences of failing to do so. See Report at 1.

-2-

2. This case is DISMISSED without prejudice.
3. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment dismissing this case,
terminate all pending motions and deadlines as moot, and close the
file.
DONE AND ORDERED in Jacksonville, Florida, this 26th day of
November, 2024.

ja
Copies to:
Counsel of Record
Pro Se Party

-3-