Floyd v. Department of Agriculture

District Court, S.D. Florida·Decided August 19, 2025·No. 1:25-cv-22756·Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case No. 25-cv-22756-BLOOM/Louis

CHARMAINE FLOYD,

Plaintiff,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE,

Defendant. _________________________/

ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Magistrate Judge Lauren Louis’ Report and Recommendation (“R&R”), ECF No. [8]. This matter was originally assigned to Judge Louis pursuant to Administrative Order 2025-11 and, therefore, Judge Louis conducted a review of the record sua sponte. In her review of the record, Judge Louis determined that she did not have authority to issue a dispositive order, finding that “the parties have not consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction at this time.” ECF No. [7]. Accordingly, on August 4, 2025, Judge Louis issued an R&R recommending that Plaintiff’s Complaint be dismissed without prejudice based on Plaintiff’s failure to either pay the filing fee or timely file an IFP Motion. See ECF No. [8]. The R&R advised Plaintiff that she had “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 this Court.” Id. at 3. To date, Plaintiff has filed no objections, nor has Plaintiff sought additional time to file objections. The Court has, nonetheless, conducted a de novo review of the R&R and the record and is otherwise fully advised in the premises. See Williams v. McNeil, 557 F.3d 1287, 1291 (11th Cir. 2009) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)). Case No. 25-cv-22756-BLOOM/Louis

Upon review, the Court finds Judge Louis’ R&R to be well reasoned and correct. The Court agrees with the analysis in the R&R and concludes that Plaintiff's Complaint must be dismissed without prejudice for the reasons set forth therein. For the foregoing reasons, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: 1. The R&R, ECF No. [8], is ADOPTED; 2. The Complaint, ECF No. [1], is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE; 3. All pending motions are DENIED AS MOOT; and 4. The Clerk shall CLOSE this case. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, August 19, 2025.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Copies furnished to: Counsel of record Charmaine Floyd 1243 N.W. 100 Terrence Miami, FL 33147 PRO SE

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Floyd v. Department of Agriculture, (S.D. Fla. 2025).

Floyd v. Department of Agriculture (Floyd v. Department of Agriculture) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Williams v. McNeil
557 F.3d 1287 (Eleventh Circuit, 2009)