Mobley v. Florida Psychological Association ( 2023 )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JACKSONVILLE DIVISION VICTORIA MOBLEY, Plaintiff, vs. Case No. 3:23-cv-517-MMH-PDB FLORIDA PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION and PHILIP ROBERT YATES, Defendants. / O R D E R THIS CAUSE is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 6; Report) entered by the Honorable Patricia D. Barksdale, United States Magistrate Judge, on May 10, 2023. In the Report, Judge Barksdale recommends dismissing this action without prejudice and terminating all pending motions. See Report at 4. On June 13, 2023, Plaintiff filed objections to the Report. See Plaintiff’s Objection (Doc. 8; Objections). Thus, this matter is ripe for review. The 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)), the 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, the Court reviews those portions of the Magistrate Judge’s findings to which no objection was filed for plain error and only if necessary, in the interests of justice. 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, the undersigned concludes that Judge Barksdale correctly determines that Plaintiff has failed to establish a basis for this Court to exercise subject matter jurisdiction over this action. Thus, the Court will overrule the Objections and 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 4. In light of the foregoing, it is hereby ORDERED: 1. Plaintiff's Objections (Doc. 8) are OVERRULED. 2. The Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 6) is ADOPTED as the opinion of the Court. 3. This case is DISMISSED without prejudice. 4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment, terminate any pending motions, and close this case. DONE AND ORDERED in Jacksonville, Florida, this 14th day of June, 2023. United States District Judge ja Copies to: Counsel of Record Pro Se Parties