Terrance Turner v. Fusion Growth Partners, U.S. Department of Labor, USSOCOM and Federal Trade Commission

• Court: District Court, M.D. Florida
• Decided: January 14, 2026
• Docket: 3:25-cv-01264
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JACKSONVILLE DIVISION

TERRANCE TURNER,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.: 3:25-cv-1264-JEP-PDB

FUSION GROWTH PARTNERS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, USSOCOM and FEDERAL TRADE

COMMISSION,

Defendants. ________________________________/

ORDER THIS CAUSE is before this Court on the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 8), entered by the assigned Magistrate Judge on December 23, 2025. Plaintiff initiated this action on October 20, 2025 (Doc. 1) and filed a “Motion to Form Leave” (Doc. 3), in which Plaintiff seeks “to proceed without the payment of fees,” (id. at 6), and attached an application to proceed in forma pauperis, (Doc. 3-2). On December 4, 2025, this Court entered a Show Cause Order directing Plaintiff to show cause why this case should not be dismissed as he “is barred from filing an in forma pauperis action in any federal district court without first obtaining leave.” (Doc. 7 at 1) (citing Turner v. Trugreen Ltd. P’ship, 3:23-cv-989-G-BK, Docs. 9, 11 (N.D. Tex. May 11, 2023); Turner v. Fed. Trade Comm’n, 3:23-cv-1356-HLA-JBT, Doc. 7 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 31, 2024)). After Plaintiff failed to respond to the show cause order, the assigned

Magistrate Judge recommended that this case be dismissed without prejudice. (Doc. 8 at 1–2). Plaintiff has failed to file objections to the Report and Recommendation, and the time for doing so has now passed. (Id. at 2–3). 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 the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, this Court “must determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition that has been properly objected to.” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 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

1 The Magistrate Judge properly informed Plaintiff of the time period for objecting and the consequences of failing to do so. (Doc. 8 at 2–3). Eleventh 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. Accordingly, it is ORDERED: 1. The Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 8) is ADOPTED and CONFIRMED as the opinion of this Court. 2. This case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to comply with this Court’s show cause order. 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate all pending motions and close the file. DONE and ORDERED in Jacksonville, Florida on January 14, 2026.

JORDAN E. PRATT UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Copies: Pro Se Party

-3-