MURPHY v. HUTCHENS (2020)

In this paternity case, Melissa Murphy appeals an order approving the report and recommendation (“R & R”) of the general magistrate regarding timesharing and the parenting plan. It is undisputed that Appellee, Lacy Hutchens, is the natural father of D.H. In Murphy's pro-se brief, she purports to allege error on behalf of the trial judge; she also complains that both attorneys who represented her in the underlying action were incompetent and that the general magistrate was unprofessional. Murphy further contends that the trial court's order approving the R & R contains error.

Murphy did not file exceptions to the magistrate's R & R; as a result, our review is limited to errors that exist on the face of the order. See Torres v. Torres, 98 So. 3d 1171, 1172 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) (finding that, despite husband's failure to file exceptions that addressed meritorious argument on appeal, trial court reversibly erred in approving recommendation because errors existed on face of magistrate's report); see also French v. French, 12 So. 3d 278, 279–80 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009) (determining that although exceptions were untimely, trial court reversibly erred in failing to correct errors apparent on face of magistrate's report). Having reviewed the order and finding no apparent errors, we affirm.

AFFIRMED.

PER CURIAM.

COHEN, HARRIS and TRAVER, JJ., concur.