UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JACKSONVILLE DIVISION

CHRISTOPHER SCOTT JAVENS, JEAN MCCLELLAN CHAMBERS, and others similarly situated,

Plaintiffs,

vs. Case No. 3:22-cv-666-MMH-MCR

FRESENIUS MEDICAL CARE INTERNATIONAL, et al.,

Defendants. /

O R D E R

THIS CAUSE is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 10; Report), entered by the Honorable Monte C. Richardson, United States Magistrate Judge, on September 23, 2022. In the Report, Judge Richardson recommends that Plaintiff Javens' Amended Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs (Long Form) (Dkt. No. 7; Motion) be denied and that this case be dismissed without prejudice. See Report at 2, 10. Plaintiffs have failed to file objections to the Report, and the time for doing so has now passed. The Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.”

(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

(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,

(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,

(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 and for the reasons stated in the Magistrate Judge’s Report, the Court will accept and adopt the legal and factual conclusions recommended by the Magistrate Judge. Accordingly, it is

hereby

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 1 n.1. ORDERED: 1. The Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 10) is ADOPTED as the opinion of the Court. 2. Plaintiff Javens' Amended Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs (Long Form) (Dkt. No. 7) is DENIED. 3. This case is DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted. 4. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate all pending motions and deadlines as moot and close the file. DONE AND ORDERED in Jacksonville, Florida, this 14th day of October, 2022.

United States District Judge ja Copies to: Counsel of Record Pro Se Parties

-3-