Odianna Bien-Aime Damus v. Jackson North Medical Center

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 25-CV-24187-RAR

ODIANNA BIEN-AIME DAMUS,

Plaintiff,

v.

JACKSON NORTH MEDICAL CENTER,

Defendant. _________________________________/

ORDER AFFIRMING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND DISMISSING CASE WITHOUT PREJUDICE

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon Magistrate Judge Marty Fulgueira Elfenbein’s Report and Recommendation, [ECF No. 7] (“Report”), filed on October 15, 2025. The Report recommends that the Court dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint, [ECF No. 1], without prejudice. The time for objections has passed, and there are no objections to the Report. When a magistrate judge’s “disposition” has been properly objected to, district courts must review the disposition de novo. FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(3). When no party has timely objected, however, “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 note to 1983 addition (citation omitted). Although Rule 72 itself is silent on the standard of review, the Supreme Court has acknowledged Congress’s intent was to only require a de novo review where objections have been properly filed—not when neither party objects. See Thomas v. Arn, 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 “[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 (Sth Cir. 1982)). Because there are no objections to the Report, the Court did not conduct a de novo review. Rather, the Court reviewed the Report for clear error. Finding none, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: 1. The Report, [ECF No. 6], is AFFIRMED AND ADOPTED. 2. Plaintiff's Complaint, [ECF No. 1], is DISMISSED without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE this case, and any pending motions are DENIED AS MOOT. DONE AND ORDERED in Miami, Florida, this 31st day of October, 2025.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Page 2 of 2