SUONUITTEHDE RSTNA DTIESTS RDIICSTTR OIFC TF LCOORUIRDTA

Case No. 24-cv-21687-KMM DANIEL ALEJANDRO SANTOS PERDOMO,

Plaintiff,

v.

U.S. CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES (USCIS), et al.,

Defendant. /

ORDER

THIS CAUSE came before the Court upon the Report and Recommendation of the Honorable Marty Fulgueira Elfenbein, United States Magistrate Judge. (“R&R”) (ECF No. 12). The matter was referred to Magistrate Judge Elfenbein, pursuant to

and the Magistrate Judge Rules of the Local Rules of the Southern District of Florida, to take all necessary and proper action as required by law regarding all pre-trial, non-dispositive matters and for a Report and Recommendation on any dispositive matters. (ECF No. 5). Magistrate Judge Elfenbein issued a sua sponte R&R, recommending that Plaintiff’s Complaint (ECF No. 1) be DISMISSED without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). Neither Defendant nor Plaintiff objected to the R&R. The matter is now ripe for review. As set forth below, the Court ADOPTS the R&R. I. LEGAL STANDARD The Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.

(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). The Court “must determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition that has been properly objected to.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). A de novo review is therefore required if a party files “a proper, specific objection” to a factual finding contained in the report. Macort v. Prem, Inc.,

(11th Cir. 2006). “It is critical that the objection be sufficiently specific and not a general objection to the report” to warrant de novo review.

Yet when a party has failed to object or has not properly objected to the magistrate judge’s findings, “the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.” See Keaton v. United States, No. 14-21230-CIV,

, at *1 (S.D. Fla. May 4, 2015); see also Lopez v. Berryhill, No. 17-CV-24263,

, at *2 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 26, 2019) (stating that a district judge “evaluate[s] portions of the R & R not objected to under a clearly erroneous standard of review” (citing Davis v. Apfel,

(M.D. Fla. 2000))). II. DISCUSSION

When a plaintiff fails to properly serve a defendant within 90 days of filing its complaint, “the court . . . must dismiss the action without prejudice against that defendant or order that service be made within a specified time,” absent good cause for plaintiff’s failure. Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 4(m). On August 8, 2024, Magistrate Judge Elfenbein ordered Plaintiff to “either properly serve Defendants or show good cause as to why he has not.” (ECF No. 8 at 2). While Plaintiff partially served Defendant U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Officer Linda Swacina (“Swacina”) earlier this year, Plaintiff’s proof of service “did not indicate that he served Defendant Swacina with a copy of the Complaint itself or that he served both documents on the United States.” R&R at 2. Thereafter, Plaintiff was ordered “to cure” the service deficiencies on or before September

9, 2024. Id.; (ECF No. 11 at 2). Plaintiff has not filed the requisite proof of service pursuant to Magistrate Judge Elfenbein’s order. R&R at 3; (ECF No. 11 at 2). In addition, Plaintiff has failed to show good cause regarding his failure to properly serve Defendants. R&R at 2; see also Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 4(m)). The Court received no objections to the aforementioned findings in the R&R. Upon a review of the record, the Court finds no clear error with Magistrate Judge Elfenbein’s findings that the case should be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). Il. CONCLUSION Accordingly, UPON CONSIDERATION of the R&R, the pertinent portions of the record, and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the R&R (ECF No. 12) is ADOPTED. Plaintiffs Complaint (ECF No. 1) is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE as to Defendant Swacina. Furthermore, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that this action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The Clerk of Court is instructed to CLOSE this case. All pending motions, if any, are DENIED AS MOOT.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this 8th day of October, 2024.

L Ve. Wleortr K. MICHAEL MOORE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

c: All counsel of record