Brooks v. White

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FORT PIERCE DIVISION CASE NO. 25-14280-CIV-CANNON-Maynard LEAH M. BROOKS, Plaintiff, v. JUDGE REBECCA IVY WHITE, et al., Defendants. _________________________________/ ORDER ACCEPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [ECF No. 11] THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation on Plaintiff’s Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (the “Report”) [ECF No. 11], issued on September 5, 2025. On August 11, 2025, Defendant filed an Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (the “Motion”) [ECF No. 4]. On September 5, 2025, Judge Maynard issued a Report recommending that the Motion be denied [ECF No. 11 pp. 1, 7]. Objections to the Report were due on September 19, 2025 [ECF No. 11 p. 7]. No party filed objections, and the time to do so has expired [ECF No. 11 p. 7].1 To challenge the findings and recommendations of a magistrate judge, a party must file specific written objections identifying the portions of the proposed findings and recommendation to which objection is made. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a); Heath v. Jones, 863 F.2d 815, 822 (11th Cir. 1989); Macort v. Prem, Inc., 208 F. App’x 781, 784 (11th Cir. 2006). A district court reviews de To the extent Plaintiffs purported to object to the Report by amending the complaint, any such effort is procedurally improper; as the Report indicates, and as the Local Rules require, the deadline to file objections to the Report expired on September 19, 2025 [ECF No. 11 p. 7]. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a).

CASE NO. 25-14280-CIV-CANNON/Maynard novo those portions of the report to which objection is made and 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)(1). To the extent a party fails to object to parts of the magistrate judge’s report, the Court may accept the recommendation so long as there is no clear error on the face of the record. Macort, 208 F. App’x at 784.

Following appropriate review, the Court finds the well-reasoned Report to contain no clear error of fact or law. For the reasons set forth in the Report [ECF No. 11 pp. 4-7], it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: 1. The Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 11] is ACCEPTED.

2. The Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining Order [ECF No. 4] is DENIED.

ORDERED in Chambers at Fort Pierce, Florida this 24th day of September 2025.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE ce: counsel of record