Age Reversal Unity v. American Association of Clinical Endocrinology (AACE)

Filing 5

ORDER adopting 4 Report and Recommendation; 2 denying Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis filed by Age Reversal Unity; dismissing case without prejudice; and directing the Clerk of the Court to close the file. Signed by Judge Marcia Morales Howard on 3/7/2025. (JW)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
JACKSONVILLE DIVISION
AGE REVERSAL UNITY,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 3:24-cv-1248-MMH-SJH

AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF
CLINICAL ENDOCRINOLOGY
(AACE),
Defendant.
_____________________________________/
ORDER
THIS CAUSE is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation
(Dkt. No. 4; Report), entered by the Honorable Samuel J. Horovitz, United
States Magistrate Judge, on February 14, 2025. In the Report, Judge Horovitz
recommends that Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed in District Court Without
Prepaying Fees or Costs (Long Form) (Dkt. No. 2; Motion) be denied and that
this case be dismissed without prejudice. See Report at 1, 6. 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
-1-

“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).
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

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 6-7.

-2-

ORDERED:
1. The Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 4) is
ADOPTED as the opinion of the Court.
2. Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying
Fees or Costs (Long Form) (Dkt. No. 2) is DENIED.
3. This case is DISMISSED without prejudice.
4. 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 7th day of March,
2025.

ja
Copies to:
Counsel of Record
Pro Se Party

-3-