Stephen P Young v. JHZ Holdings LLC, et al.

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FORT PIERCE DIVISION

CASE NO. 26-14150-CIV-CANNON/Maynard

STEPHEN P YOUNG,

Plaintiff, v.

JHZ HOLDINGS LLC, et al.,

Defendants. ________________________________/ ORDER ACCEPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [ECF No. 16]

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon Magistrate Judge Shaniek Mills Maynard’s Report and Recommendation (the “Report”), which recommends that Plaintiff’s case be dismissed without prejudice for failure to comply with court orders and failure to prosecute. This case was initially assigned to Magistrate Judge Maynard pursuant to Administrative Order 2025-11 [ECF Nos. 2, 7]. On May 12, 2026, Magistrate Judge Maynard denied Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis and gave Plaintiff until June 8, 2026, to pay the Court’s filing fee [ECF No. 12]. After that deadline came and went, Magistrate Judge Maynard sua sponte extended Plaintiff’s deadline to June 25, 2026 [ECF No. 13]. That deadline also lapsed, leading to the instant Report [ECF No. 16]. The Report recommends dismissing Plaintiff’s case due to Plaintiff’s failure to either prosecute this action or comply with Court orders [ECF No. 16 p. 3]. Objections to the Report were due on August 4, 2026 [ECF No. 16]. No party filed objections, and the time to do so has expired [ECF No. 16 pp. 3–4]. To challenge the findings and recommendations of a magistrate judge, a party must file specific written objections identifying the portions of the proposed findings and recommendation CASE NO. 26-14150-CIV-CANNON/Maynard

to which objection is made. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); Heath v. Jones, 863 F.2d 815, 822 (11th Cir. 1989); Macort v. Prem, Inc., 208 F. App’x 781, 784 (11th Cir. 2006). A district court reviews de novo those portions of the report to which objection is made and 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)(1). To the extent a party fails to object to parts of the magistrate judge’ report, the Court may accept the recommendation so long as there is no clear error on the face of the record. Macort, 208 F. App’x at 784. Following clear error review, the Court finds the Report to be well reasoned and correct. For the reasons set forth in the Report [ECF No. 16 pp. 1-3], it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: 1. The Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 16] is ACCEPTED. 2. This case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 3. The Clerk of Court shall CLOSE this case. 4. The Clerk of Court shall MAIL a copy of this Order to Defendant at the address below. ORDERED in Chambers at Fort Pierce, Florida this 6th day of August 2026.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE cc: counsel of record Stephen P Young 819 South Eucalyptus Street Sebring, FL 33870 PRO SE