Charmaine Floyd v. Mr. Thermond

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 25-cv-25820-ALTMAN/Reinhart

CHARMAINE FLOYD,

Plaintiff, v.

MR. THERMOND,

Defendant. _________________________________________/ ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Our pro se Plaintiff, Charmaine Floyd, filed her Complaint [1] against our Defendant, “Mr. Thermond,” alleging a federal claim, but failing to state any claim for relief. See generally Complaint. The Plaintiff also filed a Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP Motion”) [3] and a Motion for Referral to Volunteer Attorney Program (“Referral Motion”) [5]. On December 12, 2025, Magistrate Judge Marty Fulgueira Elfenbein issued a report and recommendation, in which she recommended that we grant the IFP Motion and deny the Referral Motion. Magistrate Judge Elfenbein also issued the following warning: Pursuant to Local Magistrate Rule 4(b), the parties have fourteen (14) days from the date of being served with a copy of this Report and Recommendation within which to file written objections, if any, with the assigned United States District Judge. Failure to timely file objections shall bar the parties from a de novo determination by the District Judge of an issue covered in the Report and shall bar the parties from attacking on appeal unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions contained in this Report, except on grounds of plain error if necessary in the interest of justice.

Id. at 12 (first citing 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); then citing Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985); then citing Henley v. Johnson, 885 F.2d 790, 794 (11th Cir. 1989); and then citing 11th CIR. R. 3-1). More than fourteen days have passed, and neither side has objected. See generally Docket. When a magistrate judge’s “disposition” has been properly objected to, district courts must review that disposition de novo. FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(3). But, when no party has timely objected, “the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.” FED. R. CIV. P. 72 advisory committee’s notes (citation omitted). Although Rule 72 itself is silent on the standard of review, the Supreme Court has acknowledged that Congress’s intent was to require de novo review only where objections have been properly filed—and not, as here, when no party objects. See Thomas, 474 U.S. at 150 (“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.”). In any event, the “[f]ailure to object to the magistrate [judge]’s factual findings after notice precludes a later attack on these findings.” Lewis v. Smith, 855 F.2d 736, 738 (11th Cir. 1988) (citing Nettles v. Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404, 410 (5th Cir. 1982)). Having reviewed the R&R, the record, and the applicable law, we find no clear error on the face of Magistrate Judge Elfenbein’s R&R and will adopt it in its entirety. We hereby ORDER and ADJUDGE as follows: 1. The Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 7] is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in full. 2. The Plaintiff’s pro se Complaint [ECF No. 1] is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). 3. The Plaintiff’s Motion for Referral to Volunteer Attorney Program [ECF No. 5] is

DENIED. 4. For the reasons stated in the Report and Recommendation, the Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to designate the Plaintiff a vexatious litigant and issue a limited injunction restricting the Plaintiff from filing any further motion, pleading, or other paper in this action, or from filing another lawsuit without prior approval from the Court or unless such filings are signed by an attorney authorized to practice law before this Court. 5. All hearings and deadlines are TERMINATED, and any other pending motions are DENIED as moot. This case ts CLOSED. DONE AND ORDERED in the Southern District of Florida on December 31, 2025.

ROY K. ALTMAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE ce: counsel of record