UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JACKSONVILLE DIVISION

LINDA HASENBALG GUSKE,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 3:23-cv-918-MMH-PDB

WEKIVA SPRINGS CENTER,

Defendant. _____________________________________/

O R D E R

THIS CAUSE is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 15; 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 without prejudice. See Report at 6. On September 15, 2023, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal (Dkt. No. 16; Objections), which the Court construes as her 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.”). While the Objections are largely incomprehensible, what is clear from a

concerted effort to decipher Plaintiff’s arguments is that she identifies no legal or factual error in the Magistrate Judge’s analysis or her conclusions. As such, the Court will overrule the Objections and accept and adopt the legal and factual conclusions recommended by the Magistrate Judge.

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. In light of the foregoing, it is hereby ORDERED: 1. The objections set forth in Plaintiffs Notice of Appeal (Dkt. No. 16) are OVERRULED. 2. The Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 15) is ADOPTED as the opinion of the Court. 3. This case is DISMISSED without prejudice. 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 2nd day of October, 2023.

United States District Judge

ja Copies to: Counsel of Record Pro Se Party

-3-