Honesty L. Truth v. Taco Bell Corp., et al.

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 26-cv-23559-ALTMAN/Louis HONESTY L. TRUTH

Plaintiff, v.

TACO BELL CORP., et al.,

Defendants. ______________________________/

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION On May 19, 2026, the Plaintiff filed the Complaint [ECF No. 1]. On July 8, 2026, U.S. Magistrate Judge Lauren F. Louis issued a Report and Recommendation (the “R&R”) [ECF No. 11], explaining that the “Plaintiff has not paid the $405.00 filing fee or filed an application to proceed without prepayment of the filing fee,” and that the Plaintiff “has not responded to [an] Order to Show Cause” instructing the Plaintiff to “identify[ ] Plaintiff’s true name, and if applicable, to file an amended complaint under her legal name.” R&R at 1–2. The R&R thus concluded that the Plaintiff’s “failure to comply with the Court’s Orders . . . or seek an extension of time in which to do so, warrants dismissal of this action without prejudice.” Id. at 2. Under Local Magistrate Rule 4(b), parties have fourteen (14) days from the date of being served with a copy of a Report and Recommendation within which to file written objections with the relevant United States District Judge. See also FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(3). Here, the fourteen-day deadline for filing objections has passed, and no objection has been filed. See generally Docket. When a magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation has been properly objected to, district courts must review that disposition de novo. See 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 v. Am, 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.”’). In any event, the “[flailure 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). Having reviewed the R&R, the record, and the applicable law—and finding no clear error on the face of the R&R—we hereby ORDER and ADJUDGE as follows: 1. The Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 11] is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in full. 2. This action is DISMISSED without prejudice. 3. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to CLOSE this case. All deadlines are TERMINATED, and any pending motions ace DENIED as moot. DONE AND ORDERED in the Southern District “Ke ROYK.ALTMAN ———™ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE cc: counsel of record