Chaney v. Trump

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JACKSONVILLE DIVISION EVANDA JOSEPH CHANEY, Plaintiff, v. Case No. 3:25-cv-405-MMH-SJH DONALD JOHN TRUMP, Defendant. _____________________________________/

O R D E R

THIS CAUSE is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 8; Report), entered by the Honorable Samuel J. Horovitz, United States Magistrate Judge, on June 5, 2025. In the Report, Judge Horovitz recommends that Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs (Long Form) (Dkt. No. 2; Motion) be denied and that this case be dismissed without prejudice. See Report at 1, 6. Plaintiff filed three documents following the entry of the Report. See Notice of Evidence of Entitlements (Dkt. No. 10); Notice of Evidence of Monthly Payments (Dkt. No. 11); and Notice of Right of Demands (Dkt. No. 12). None of these documents address the Magistrate Judge’s reasoning, nor do any of them constitute an objection to the Report. The matter is ripe for the Court’s review.

The Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(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 28 U.S.C. § 636(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, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (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, 715 F.3d 1295, 1304-05 (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 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. factual conclusions recommended by the Magistrate Judge. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED: 1. The Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 8) 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 DENIED.

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 July, 2025.

United States District Judge ja Copies to: Counsel of Record Pro Se Party -3-