Andre' Gautier McDaniel v. United Parcel Service

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

In the

United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 25-11699

Non-Argument Calendar

____________________

ANDRÉ GAUTIER MCDANIEL, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, Defendant-Appellee.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia D.C. Docket No. 1:24-cv-05500-TRJ

____________________

Before ROSENBAUM, GRANT, and WILSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:

Plaintiff-Appellant André McDaniel, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s order dismissing his Title VII and Age Dis-

2

2 Opinion of the Court 25-11699

crimination in Employment Act claims against his former employer , United Parcel Service (UPS). The district court adopted the magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation (R&R) to grant UPS’s motion for judgment on the pleadings. McDaniel did not object to the R&R. Now on appeal, he asserts that the R&R, which the district court adopted in its final order, finding that he filed an untimely EEOC charge was false. But under Eleventh Circuit Rule 3-1, a party, here McDaniel, that fails to object to a magistrate judge’s findings or recommendations contained in an R&R “waives the right to challenge on appeal the district court’s order based on unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions if the party was informed of the time period for objecting and the consequences on appeal for failing to object.” Smith v. Marcus & Millichap, Inc., 106 F.4th 1091, 1098 (11th Cir. 2024) (quotation marks omitted). Because he failed to object to the R&R, McDaniel waived his right to challenge the order.

But we may nonetheless review waived objections to a magistrate judge’s R&R findings “for plain error if necessary in the interests of justice.” 11th Cir. R. 3-1. This plain-error review “rarely applies in civil cases.” Smith, 106 F.4th at 1099 (quotation marks omitted). And that exception will not apply when the appellant does not argue in his initial brief that reviewing his waived objections is “necessary and in the interests of justice.” Id. Here, McDaniel only argues that the district court’s finding that he filed an untimely EEOC charge was false. He makes no other arguments that review of his waived objections is necessary or in the

USCA11 Case: 25-11699 Document: 19-1 Date Filed: 01/13/2026 Page: 3 of 3

25-11699 Opinion of the Court 3

interests of justice. Thus, we affirm the district court’s granting UPS’s motion for judgment on the pleadings.

AFFIRMED.1

1 McDaniel filed a motion where he requests that we reverse the district

court’s decision to allow him to have a trial on his claims. Because we affirm the district court’s dismissal of McDaniel’s claims, the motion is denied as moot.