Facts
- Esther E. Baines filed a lawsuit against Frontline Asset Strategies, LLC on April 29, 2024, alleging violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act [lines="12-13"].
- The United States Magistrate Judge issued a recommendation on November 1, 2024, to dismiss Baines' complaint without prejudice due to failure to properly serve the Defendant [lines="15-18"].
- Baines did not file any objections to the magistrate's report and the time for objections had expired [lines="19-19"].
- The district court undertook a careful review of the magistrate judge’s findings and legal conclusions [lines="57-59"].
- The final ruling on November 20, 2024, dismissed the complaint without prejudice and ordered the closing of the case [lines="60-67"].
Issues
- Whether the complaint should be dismissed without prejudice for failure to serve the Defendant in accordance with procedural rules [lines="18"].
- Whether the district court properly conducted de novo review of the magistrate judge’s recommendations [lines="58-59"].
Holdings
- The court upheld dismissal of the complaint due to Baines' failure to serve the Defendant as required [lines="61"].
- The court confirmed that it properly engaged in de novo review of the relevant legal conclusions of the magistrate [lines="47"].
OPINION
Case Information
*1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA ORLANDO DIVISION
ESTHER E. BAINES,
Plaintiff, v. Case No: 6:24-cv-799-JSS-LHP FRONTLINE ASSET STRATEGIES,
LLC,
Defendant.
___________________________________/
ORDER
Plaintiff Esther E. Baines, proceeding pro se, brought this action against Defendant Frontline Asset Strategies, LLC on April 29, 2024, alleging violations of the Fair Credit Report Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1681. (Dkt. 1 at 1.) On November 1, 2024, United States Magistrate Judge Leslie Hoffman Price entered a report and recommendation recommending that Plaintiff’s complaint (Dkt. 1) be dismissed without prejudice for failure to serve Defendant in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) and Judge Hoffman Price’s August 30, 2024, order, (Dkt. 17). (Dkt. 18.) No party has objected, and the time to do so has expired. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
After conducting a careful and complete review of the findings and recommendations, a district judge “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. *2 § 636(b)(1); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72. With respect to non-dispositive matters, the district judge “must consider timely objections and modify or set aside any part of the order that is clearly erroneous or is contrary to law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a); see Jordan v. Comm’r, Miss. Dep’t of Corr. , 947 F.3d 1322, 1327 (11th Cir. 2020). For dispositive matters, the district judge must conduct a de novo review of any portion of the report and recommendation to which a timely objection is made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); United States v. Farias-Gonzalez , 556 F.3d 1181, 1184 n.1 (11th Cir. 2009) (“A district court makes a de novo determination of those portions of a magistrate’s report to which objections are filed.”). Even in the absence of a specific objection, the district judge reviews any legal conclusions de novo. See Cooper-Houston v. S. Ry. Co. , 37 F.3d 603, 604 (11th Cir. 1994); Ashworth v. Glades Cnty. Bd. of Cnty. Comm’rs , 379 F. Supp. 3d 1244, 1246 (M.D. Fla. 2019).
Upon conducting a careful and complete review of the Magistrate Judge’s findings, conclusions, and recommendations, and giving de novo review to matters of law, the court adopts the report and recommendation in full.
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s complaint (Dkt. 1) is DISMISSED without prejudice . The Clerk is DIRECTED to terminate any pending motions and deadlines, and to close this case.
ORDERED in Orlando, Florida, on November 20, 2024.
Copies furnished to:
Unrepresented Party
