Alston v. PREMIERE CARRIAGE AUTO GROUP et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO. 26-cv-61376-JTK/DSW
ANTHONY ALSTON,
Plaintiff,
v.
PREMIERE CARRIAGE AUTO
GROUP,
Defendant.
_______________________________/
ORDER
THIS CAUSE came before the Court on Magistrate Judge Detra Shaw-Wilder’s
Report and Recommendation to Dismiss Case Without Prejudice [ECF No. 8], entered on
September 24, 2026. On May 7, 2026, Plaintiff Anthony Alston filed a Complaint pro se
against Defendant Premier Carriage Auto Group [ECF No. 1]. This case was originally
assigned to Magistrate Judge Detra Shaw-Wilder at the time of filing. On August 19, 2026,
Judge Shaw-Wilder dismissed the case without prejudice for failure to state a claim. [ECF
No. 4]. Plaintiff was afforded an opportunity to file an Amended Complaint by September
21, 2026. Id. The deadline has passed, and no Amended Complaint has been filed. On
September 24, 2026, Judge Shaw-Wilder then issued a Report and Recommendation that
the case be dismissed without prejudice. [ECF No. 8]. Without any timely objections, and
after carefully reviewing the Report, the Court agrees with the recommendation that the
case be dismissed.
Upon reviewing the record, Judge Shaw-Wilder issued the Report recommending
that Plaintiff’s Complaint be Dismissed without prejudice. Id. Judge Shaw-Wilder found
Case 0:26-cv-61376-JTK Document 9 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/09/2026 Page 1 of 3

that Plaintiff’s failure to timely file an amended complaint warrants dismissal. Id. allowing
the parties fourteen (14) days from receipt of the Report to file any objections. Id.
When a magistrate judge’s “disposition” has properly been objected to, district courts
must review the disposition de novo. FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(3). When no party has timely
objected, however, “the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face
of the record in order to accept the recommendation.” FED. R. CIV. P. 72 advisory
committee’s notes (citation omitted). Although Rule 72 itself is silent on the standard of
review, the Supreme Court has acknowledged Congress’s intent was to only require a de
novo review where objections have been properly filed, not when neither party objects. See
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.”). In any
event, the “[f]ailure to object to the magistrate [judge]’s factual findings after notice
precludes a later attack on these findings.” Lewis v. Smith, 855 F.2d 736, 738 (11th Cir.
1988) (citing Nettles v. Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404, 410 (5th Cir. 1982)).
The undersigned has reviewed the Report, the record, and the applicable law to
assure that no clear error appears on the face of the record. In the light of that review, the
undersigned agrees with the analysis and recommendations stated in Judge Shaw-Wilder’s
Report, and agrees with Judge Shaw-Wilder’s conclusion that Plaintiff’s Complaint be
dismissed. Accordingly, it is
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Report [ECF No. 8] is AFFIRMED AND
ADOPTED and the case is DISMISSED without prejudice. The Clerk is directed to
CLOSE this case and deny any pending motions as moot.
Case 0:26-cv-61376-JTK Document 9 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/09/2026 Page 2 of 3

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, this 8th day of
October, 2026.
___________________________________
JEFFREY T. KUNTZ
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Cc: counsel of record
Case 0:26-cv-61376-JTK Document 9 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/09/2026 Page 3 of 3