Peter Borgese v. Sheriff T.K. Waters, et al.

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JACKSONVILLE DIVISION

PETER BORGHESE, Plaintiff,

v. Case No.: 3:25-cv-00921-JEP-SJH

SHERIFF T.K. WATERS, et al., Defendants.

ORDER THIS CASUE is before this Court on the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 8, Report), entered by the assigned Magistrate Judge, on October 24, 2025. In the Report, the Magistrate Judge recommends that Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs (Doc. 2) be denied and that this case be dismissed without prejudice. See Report at 1, 5. Plaintiff has failed to file objections to the Report, and the time for doing so has now passed. This Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). Pursuant to Rule 72, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (Rule(s)), this Court “must determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition that has been properly objected to.” See Rule 72(b)(3); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). However, a party waives the right to challenge on appeal any unobjected-to

factual and legal conclusions. See 11th Cir. R. 3-1.1 As such, this Court reviews—for plain error and only if necessary, in the interests of justice—those portions of the Magistrate Judge’s findings to which no objection was filed. See id.; see also 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.”); Dupree v. Warden, 715 F.3d 1295, 1304-05 (11th Cir. 2013) (recommending the adoption of what would become

11th Circuit Rule 3-1 so that district courts do not have “to spend significant amounts of time and resources reviewing every issue—whether objected to or not.”). Upon independent review of the file and for the reasons stated in the

Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, this Court will accept and adopt the legal and factual conclusions recommended by the Magistrate Judge.

1 The Magistrate Judge properly informed the parties of the time period for objecting and the consequences of failing to do so. See Report at 5-6. Accordingly, itis ORDERED: 1. The Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 8) is ADOPTED as the opinion of this Court. 2. Plaintiff's Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs (Doc. 2) is DENIED. 3. This case is DISMISSED without prejudice. 4, The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment dismissing this case, terminate all pending motions and deadlines as moot, and close the file. DONE and ORDERED in Jacksonville, Florida on November 18, 2025.

Cae JORDAN E. PRATT UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Copies: Pro Se Party

-3-