Elijah D. Davis v. United States of America

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA ORLANDO DIVISION

ELIJAH D. DAVIS,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No: 6:25-cv-959-JSS-RMN

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendant. __________________________________/ ORDER Defendant moves to dismiss the complaint, (see Dkts. 1, 1-1), for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1), (6), and asks the court to deny leave to amend. (Dkt. 7; see Dkts. 8, 8-1, 8-2.) Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, opposes the motion. (Dkt. 12.) The magistrate judge recommends granting the motion, dismissing the complaint without prejudice and without leave to amend, and directing the Clerk to revise the case caption to correctly identify the United States of America as Defendant and to close this case. (Dkt. 16.) No party has filed objections to the recommendation, and the time to do so has passed. Upon consideration, the court adopts the recommendation in full. After conducting a careful and complete review of the findings and recommendations made by a magistrate judge, a district judge “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); accord Fed. R. Civ. P. 72. A party must serve and file written objections to a magistrate judge’s recommendation within fourteen days of being served with a copy of it, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), and the failure to object in a timely fashion “waives the right to challenge on appeal the district court’s order based on unobjected-to factual and legal

conclusions,” 11th Cir. R. 3-1. With respect to dispositive matters, the district judge must conduct a de novo review of any portion of the recommendation to which a timely objection is made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); United States v. Farias-Gonzalez, 556 F.3d 1181, 1184 n.1 (11th Cir. 2009) (“A district court makes a de novo determination of those portions of a magistrate’s report to which objections

are filed.”). Even in the absence of a specific objection, the district judge reviews any legal conclusions de novo. Cooper-Houston v. S. Ry. Co., 37 F.3d 603, 604 (11th Cir. 1994); Ashworth v. Glades Cnty. Bd. of Cnty. Comm’rs, 379 F. Supp. 3d 1244, 1246 (M.D. Fla. 2019).

Here, upon conducting a careful and complete review of the magistrate judge’s recommendation and giving de novo review to matters of law, the court agrees with the recommendation. Accordingly: 1. The magistrate judge’s recommendation (Dkt. 16) is ADOPTED.

2. Defendant’s motion to dismiss (Dkt. 7) is GRANTED. 3. Plaintiff’s pro se complaint (Dkt. 1) is DISMISSED without prejudice and without leave to amend. 4. The Clerk is DIRECTED to revise the case caption to correctly identify the United States of America as Defendant. 5. The Clerk is further DIRECTED to enter judgment accordingly, to terminate any pending motions and deadlines, and to close this case. ORDERED in Orlando, Florida, on July 9, 2026.

Ae ic JUVIE S. SNEED UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Copies furnished to: Counsel of Record Unrepresented Parties

-3-