Case: 18-10731 Date Filed: 11/01/2018 Page: 1 of 3
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 18-10731
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:16-cv-03369-SCJ
CYNTHIA NALL TURNER,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
SYNDICATED OFFICE SYSTEMS, LLC,
d.b.a. Central Financial Control,
TENET HEALTHSYSTEM MEDICAL, INC.,
d.b.a. Spalding Regional Hospital,
Defendants-Appellees.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia
________________________
(November 1, 2018)
Case: 18-10731 Date Filed: 11/01/2018 Page: 2 of 3
Before TJOFLAT, WILSON and HULL, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Cynthia Turner, proceeding pro se, appeals following a grant of summary
judgment in favor of the defendants in her action brought under the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692e, 1692f, 1692h; the Georgia Fair
Business Practices Act, Ga. Code § 10-1-391; and for conversion and negligence.
Generally, we review de novo a district court’s grant of summary judgment,
viewing all evidence and reasonable factual inferences drawn from it in the light
most favorable to the nonmoving party. Crawford v. Carroll,
529 F.3d 961, 964
(11th Cir. 2008). However, under Eleventh Circuit Rule 3-1, a party who fails to
object to a magistrate judge’s findings or recommendations in an Report &
Recommendation (“R&R”) “waives the right to challenge on appeal the district
court’s order based on unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions,” provided the
party was given proper notice of the objection time period and the consequences of
failing to do so.
Id. We will “only review a waived objection, for plain error, if
necessary in the interests of justice.” Evans v. Ga. Reg’l Hosp.,
850 F.3d 1248,
1257 (11th Cir. 2017); 11th Cir. R. 3-1. But a review for plain error “rarely applies
in civil cases.”
Evans, 850 F.3d at 1257 (quoting Ledford v. Peeples,
657 F.3d
1222, 1258 (11th Cir. 2011)). Even when it does, “we require a greater showing of
2
Case: 18-10731 Date Filed: 11/01/2018 Page: 3 of 3
error than in criminal appeals.”
Id. (citing United States v. Levy,
391 F.3d 1327,
1343 n.12 (11th Cir. 2004)).
Turner failed to preserve the errors she claims the District Court made
because she never objected to the Magistrate Judge’s R&R. Turner does not argue
that she received inadequate notice of the time period for objecting to the R&R or
the consequences of her failing to do so. Instead, she explains that she was
prevented from objecting to the R&R by “illness and emotional devastation caused
by the ruling.” Although we in no way mean to diminish the seriousness of her
upset, Turner has not supplied us with a sufficient reason to review the District
Court’s judgment for plain error. 1
AFFIRMED.
1
Even if we were to review for plain error, the record discloses no error, much less a
plain one. The Magistrate Judge correctly determined that Turner’s FDCPA clams were time
barred. The Magistrate Judge also correctly rejected Turner’s negligence claim for lack of
causation and ruled against her on her conversion claim because she consented to the alleged
conversion.
3
