Restricted Filer - Floyd v. Mr. Thermond

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO. 25-cv-25820-ALTMAN/Reinhart
CHARMAINE FLOYD,
Plaintiff,
v.
MR. THERMOND,
Defendant.
_________________________________________/
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Our pro se Plaintiff, Charmaine Floyd, filed her Complaint [1] against our Defendant, “Mr.
Thermond,” alleging a federal claim, but failing to state any claim for relief. See generally Complaint.
The Plaintiff also filed a Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP Motion”) [3] and a Motion
for Referral to Volunteer Attorney Program (“Referral Motion”) [5]. On December 12, 2025,
Magistrate Judge Marty Fulgueira Elfenbein issued a report and recommendation, in which she
recommended that we grant the IFP Motion and deny the Referral Motion. Magistrate Judge
Elfenbein also issued the following warning:
Pursuant to Local Magistrate Rule 4(b), the parties have fourteen (14) days from the
date of being served with a copy of this Report and Recommendation within which to
file written objections, if any, with the assigned United States District Judge. Failure to
timely file objections shall bar the parties from a de novo determination by the District
Judge of an issue covered in the Report and shall bar the parties from attacking on
appeal unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions contained in this Report, except on
grounds of plain error if necessary in the interest of justice.
Id. at 12 (first citing 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); then citing Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985); then
citing Henley v. Johnson, 885 F.2d 790, 794 (11th Cir. 1989); and then citing 11th C IR . R. 3-1). More than
fourteen days have passed, and neither side has objected. See generally Docket.
When a magistrate judge’s “disposition” has been properly objected to, district courts must
review that disposition de novo. F ED . R. CIV . P. 72(b)(3). But, when no party has timely objected, “the
Case 1:25-cv-25820-RKA Document 10 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/31/2025 Page 1 of 3

2
court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept
the recommendation.” F ED . 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 that Congress’s
intent was to require de novo review only where objections have been properly filed—and not, as here,
when no party objects. See Thomas, 474 U.S. at 150 (“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)).
Having reviewed the R&R, the record, and the applicable law, we find no clear error on the
face of Magistrate Judge Elfenbein’s R&R and will adopt it in its entirety.
We hereby ORDER and ADJUDGE as follows:
1. 	The Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 7] is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in
full.
2. 	The 	Plaintiff’s 	pro 	se 	Complaint 	[ECF 	No. 	1] 	is 	DISMISSED 	WITHOUT
PREJUDICE under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).
3. 	The Plaintiff’s Motion for Referral to Volunteer Attorney Program [ECF No. 5] is
DENIED.
4. 	For the reasons stated in the Report and Recommendation, the Clerk of Court is
DIRECTED to designate the Plaintiff a vexatious litigant and issue a limited
injunction restricting the Plaintiff from filing any further motion, pleading, or other
paper in this action, or from filing another lawsuit without prior approval from the
Case 1:25-cv-25820-RKA Document 10 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/31/2025 Page 2 of 3

3
Court or unless such filings are signed by an attorney authorized to practice law before
this Court.
5. 	All hearings and deadlines are TERMINATED, and any other pending motions are
DENIED as moot. This case is CLOSED.
DONE AND ORDERED in the Southern District of Florida on December 31, 2025.
_________________________________
ROY K. ALTMAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
cc: 	counsel of record
Case 1:25-cv-25820-RKA Document 10 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/31/2025 Page 3 of 3