UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JACKSONVILLE DIVISION

PIETRO PASQUALE ANTONIO SGROMO,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 3:22-cv-797-MMH-LLL

JA-RU, INC.,

Defendant.

O R D E R

THIS CAUSE is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 25; Report), entered by the Honorable Laura Lothman Lambert, United States Magistrate Judge, on February 6, 2023. In the Report, Judge Lambert recommends that Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs (Long Form) (Dkt. No. 2) be granted; Defendant’s Motions to Dismiss and Motion to Deny Waiving Fees, Set Limits on Plaintiff’s Future Pleadings and Issue an Order to Show Cause as to Why Plaintiff Should Not Be Designated a Vexatious Litigant Pursuant to the All Writs Act (Dkt. No. 8) be granted in part and denied in part; and Plaintiff’s Complaint be dismissed without prejudice. See Report at 2, 15-16. No objections to the Report have been filed, 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.”).

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 15, n.9. 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 ORDERED:

1. The Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 25) is ADOPTED as the opinion of the Court. 2. Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs (Long Form) (Dkt. No. 2) is GRANTED.

3. Defendant’s Motions to Dismiss and Motion to Deny Waiving Fees, Set Limits on Plaintiff’s Future Pleadings and Issue an Order to Show Cause as to Why Plaintiff Should Not Be Designated a Vexatious Litigant Pursuant to the All Writs Act (Dkt. No. 8) is GRANTED, in

part, and DENIED, in part. a. The construed motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) is GRANTED as to Plaintiff’s claim for patent infringement;

b. The construed motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) is GRANTED as to Plaintiff’s claim for breach of contract; and c. Defendant’s request that Plaintiff be declared a vexatious litigant and require a pre-filing injunction is DENIED. 4, This case is DISMISSED without prejudice. 5. The Clerk of the Court is directed to terminate all pending motions and deadlines and close the file. DONE AND ORDERED in Jacksonville, Florida, this 2nd day of March, 2023.

MARCIA MORALES HOWARD United States District Judge

ja Copies to: Counsel of Record Pro Se Party

-4-