Bernard v. Automax

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: 25-CV-62150-WPD MILTON BERNARD, Plaintiff, v. AUTOMAX, Defendant. ___________________________________/ ORDER ADOPTING AND APPROVING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE; DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND WITH LEAVE TO AMEND THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Strauss (the “Report”) [DE 5], issued on October 24, 2025. The Court notes that no objections to the Report [DE 5] have been filed, and the time for filing such objections has passed. As no timely objections were filed, the Magistrate Judge’s factual findings in the Report [DE 5] are hereby adopted and deemed incorporated into this opinion. LoConte v. Dugger, 847 F.2d 745, 749-50 (11th Cir. 1988), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 958 (1988); RTC v. Hallmark Builders, Inc., 996 F.2d 1144, 1149 (11th Cir. 1993). Although no timely objections were filed, the Court has conducted a de novo review of the Report [DE 5] and record and is otherwise fully advised in the premises. The Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s analysis and conclusions. Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: 1. The Report [DE 5] is hereby ADOPTED and APPROVED; 2. The Complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE; 3. Plaintiff is granted leave to file an Amended Complaint, consistent with Judge Strauss’ October 24, 2025 Report and Recommendation, on or before December 1, 2025. Failure to do so will result in the Court closing the case. 4. The Clerk shall EMAIL a copy of this Order to Plaintiff at the address below. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Fort Lauderdale, Broward County, Florida, this 10th day of November, 2025. : “4 if % f ? f tne i ye Zo #4 v Paty 4 ‘4 ase Af VILLIAM P. DIMITROULEAS United States District Judge Copies furnished to: Counsel of record Magistrate Judge Strauss Milton Bernard at email address: Miltonbernard15@gmail.com