UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JACKSONVILLE DIVISION

KENNETH E. BENTON,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 3:23-cv-987-MMH-PDB

STEVEN M. FAHLGREN,

Defendant. _____________________________________/

O R D E R

THIS CAUSE is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 4; Report), entered by the Honorable Patricia D. Barksdale, United States Magistrate Judge, on September 7, 2023. In the Report, Judge Barksdale recommends that this case be dismissed. See Report at 1, 6. On September 22, 2023, Plaintiff filed his Response to Judge Requesting to Proceed (Dkt. No. 5; Objections), which the Court construes as his objections to the Report. 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.”

(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.”). In the Objections, Plaintiff expresses his desire “to move forward with

my complaint.” Objections at 1. However, he identifies no legal or factual error in the Magistrate Judge’s analysis or her conclusions. Upon review of the record, the Court determines that the Magistrate Judge’s analysis is fully supported by the law. As such, the Court will overrule the Objections and

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 6-7. accept and adopt the legal and factual conclusions recommended by the Magistrate Judge. In light of the foregoing, it is hereby ORDERED: 1. The objections set forth in Plaintiff's Response to Judge Requesting to Proceed (Dkt. No. 5) are OVERRULED. 2. The Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 4) is ADOPTED as the opinion of the Court. 3. This case is DISMISSED. 4, The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment dismissing this case, terminate all pending motions and deadlines as moot, and close the file. DONE AND ORDERED in Jacksonville, Florida, this 28th day of September, 2023.

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

-3-