Hines v. Wixford Health Source Inc. ( 2024 )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 1:15-cv-22472-KMM JACKIE J. HINES, Plaintiff, v. CARL BALMIR and ROBERT SMITH, Defendants. / ORDER ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION THIS CAUSE came before the Court upon the Report and Recommendations issued by United States Magistrate Judge Lauren F. Louis on February 26, 2024. (“R&R”) (ECF No. 195). On July 20, 2023, the Court referred this case to Magistrate Judge Louis to take all necessary and proper action as required by law regarding all pre-trial, non-dispositive matters including discovery, and for a Report and Recommendation on any dispositive matters. (ECF No. 184). In the instant R&R, Magistrate Judge Louis recommends that this action be DISMISSED for failure to prosecute. See generally R&R. No objections to the R&R were filed, and the time to do so has passed. The matter is now ripe for review.1 As set forth below, the Court ADOPTS the R&R. I. LEGAL STANDARD 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)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). The Court “must determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition that has been 1 The Court assumes the Parties’ familiarity with the facts and procedural history, which are set forth in the R&R. See R&R at 1–4. properly objected to.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). A de novo review is therefore required if a party files “a proper, specific objection” to a factual finding contained in the report. Macort v. Prem, Inc., 208 F. App’x 781, 784 (11th Cir. 2006). “It is critical that the objection be sufficiently specific and not a general objection to the report” to warrant de novo review. Id. Yet when a party has not properly objected to the magistrate judge’s findings, “the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.” See Keaton v. United States, No. 14-21230-CIV, 2015 WL 12780912, at *1 (S.D. Fla. May 4, 2015) (citation omitted); see also Lopez v. Berryhill, No. 17-CV-24263, 2019 WL 2254704, at *2 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 26, 2019) (stating that a district judge “evaluate[s] portions of the [R&R] not objected to under a clearly erroneous standard of review” (quoting Davis v. Apfel, 93 F. Supp. 2d 1313, 1317 (M.D. Fla. 2000))). II. DISCUSSION As set forth in the R&R, Magistrate Judge Louis recommends that this action be dismissed for failure to prosecute. See generally R&R. Specifically, Magistrate Judge Louis finds that dismissal is warranted because “[t]he record before the Court evidences a clear record of delay” on the part of pro se Plaintiff Jackie J. Hines, including “repeatedly fail[ing] to appear at hearings as directed,” “fail[ing] to timely comply with discovery requests related to the issue on remand,” and “fail[ing] to respond to Defendants’ summary judgment motion despite receiving notice.” Id. at 4–5. Indeed, Magistrate Judge Louis notes that “[t]he docket reflects that Plaintiff has not litigated this case since April 2023.” Id. at 5. Magistrate Judge Louis further finds that “no lesser sanction other than dismissal will suffice” given that Plaintiff’s “repeated delays and noncompliance with Court Orders has prevented the timely resolution of the discrete issue remanded to the District Court from the Eleventh Circuit.” Id. This Court agrees. Wl. CONCLUSION UPON CONSIDERATION of the R&R, the pertinent portions of the record, and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the R&R (ECF No. 195) is ADOPTED and this action is DISMISSED for failure to prosecute. The Clerk of Court is INSTRUCTED to CLOSE this case. All pending motions, if any, are DENIED AS MOOT. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this 28th day of May, 2024. é MICHAEL MOORE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE c: All counsel of record