Poindexter v. Nelnet Inc.

• Court: District Court, M.D. Florida
• Decided: October 10, 2025
• Docket: 8:25-cv-01138
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION

TRYLE POINDEXTER,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No: 8:25-cv-01138-MSS-TGW

NELNET INC., d/b/a FIRSTMARK SERVICES, LLC,

Defendant.

ORDER THIS CAUSE comes before the Court for consideration of Plaintiff’s Amended Motion to Stay Proceedings and Compel Binding Individual Arbitration (FAA §§ 3-4) (the “Motion”), (Dkt. 16), Defendant’s response in opposition to the Motion, (Dkt. 20), and Plaintiff’s reply in support of the Motion. (Dkt. 22) On August 13, 2025, United States Magistrate Judge Thomas G. Wilson issued a Report and Recommendation, which recommended that Plaintiff’s Motion be denied. (Dkt. 23) Judge Wilson found that the subject agreement provides a contractual right to compel arbitration to Defendant but not Plaintiff where, as in this case, a claim filed in small claims court is removed to federal court. (Id. at 5) Judge Wilson also found that Plaintiff acted inconsistently with, and thus waived, any right to compel arbitration by filing a lawsuit in small claims court and by filing in this Court an amended complaint despite also filing a motion to compel arbitration. (Id. at 7–8) Accordingly, Judge Wilson recommended the Court deny the Motion. (Id. at 9) Plaintiff has not filed an objection to the Report and Recommendation, and the deadline for doing so has passed.

In the Eleventh Circuit, a district judge may accept, reject, or modify the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation after conducting a careful and complete review of the findings and recommendations. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Williams v. Wainwright, 681 F.2d 732, 732 (11th Cir. 1982). A district judge “shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed

findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). This requires that the district judge “give fresh consideration to those issues to which specific objection has been made by a party.” Jeffrey S. v. State Bd. of Educ., 896 F.2d 507, 512 (11th Cir.1990) (quoting H.R. 1609, 94th Cong. § 2 (1976)). In the absence

of specific objections, there is no requirement that a district judge review factual findings de novo, Garvey v. Vaughn, 993 F.2d 776, 779 n.9 (11th Cir. 1993), and the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings and recommendations. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The district judge reviews legal conclusions de novo, even in the absence of an objection. See Cooper-Houston v.

Southern Ry., 37 F.3d 603, 604 (11th Cir. 1994). Upon consideration of the Report and Recommendation, in conjunction with an independent examination of the file, the Court concludes that the Report and Recommendation should be adopted, confirmed, and approved in all respects. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that: 1. The Report and Recommendation, (Dkt. 23), is CONFIRMED and ADOPTED as part of this Order. 2. Plaintiffs Amended Motion to Stay Proceedings and Compel Binding Individual Arbitration (FAA §§ 3-4), (Dkt. 16), is DENIED.

DONE and ORDERED in Tampa, Florida, this 10th day of October 2025.

MARY'.S_SGRIVEN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Copies furnished to: Counsel of Record Any Unrepresented Person