Lewis v. Mavis Tire and Auto Corp

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 0:25-cv-60659-LEIBOWITZ/STRAUSS

JONATHAN K. LEWIS, Plaintiff,

v.

MAVIS TIRE AND AUTO CORP., Defendant. ________________________________/

ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

THIS CAUSE was initiated in the Southern District of New York. [ECF No. 1]. The case was subsequently transferred to this District under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). [ECF No. 7]. Upon transfer, the case was assigned to United States Magistrate Judge Jared M. Strauss pursuant to Administrative Order 2025-11 [ECF No. 8], and pro se Plaintiff moved to proceed in forma pauperis [ECF No. 12]. After screening the First Amended Complaint [ECF No. 16] under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), Magistrate Judge Strauss determined the case should be dismissed and directed the Clerk to randomly reassign the case to a United States District Judge for disposition. [ECF No. 17]. In addition, Judge Strauss issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”), recommending the case be dismissed and that all pending motions be denied as moot. [ECF No. 18]. The Clerk re-assigned the case to the undersigned, who has carefully considered the R&R. [See ECF No. 19]. No objections to the R&R were filed during the 14-day objection period. Upon due consideration of the R&R, the filings, the applicable law, and the record, the Court ADOPTS and AFFIRMS the Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 18]. LEGAL STANDARD After conducting a review of the findings and recommendations, a district judge may accept, reject, or modify a magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). If a party files a timely and specific objection to a finding of fact by a magistrate judge, the district court must conduct a de novo review with respect to that factual issue. Stokes v. Singletary, 952 F.2d 1567, 1576 (11th Cir. 1992). The district court reviews legal conclusions de nove, even in the absence of an objection. See 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). ‘To the extent a party fails to object to parts of the magistrate judge’s report, those portions are reviewed for clear error. Macort v. Prem. Inc., 208 F. App’x 781, 784 (11th Cir. 2006) (quoting Johnson v. Zema Sys. Corp., 170 F.3d 734, 739 (7th Cir. 1999)). CONCLUSION In the absence of any objection and after reviewing the factual allegations and legal conclusions, the Court finds no clear error. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED: 1. The Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 18] is ADOPTED and made a part of this Order for all purposes. 2. This case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 3. All pending motions, including ECF No. 12, are DENIED AS MOOT. 4, The Clerk is directed to CLOSE this case. DONE AND ORDERED in the Southern District of Florida on June 23, 2025.

ae es UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE cc: counsel of record