Methelus et al v. The School Board Of Collier County, Florida et al

Filing 63

ORDER adopting the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Mac R. McCoy. The Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Mac R. McCoy 26 is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED, and the finding incorporated erein. Plaintiffs ' Motion for Class Certification 7 is DENIED without prejudice. The matter is REFERRED to the Honorable Mac R. McCoy to hold a second preliminary pretrial conference in order to (1) discuss both case-management deadlines and a new motion for class certification deadline; and (2) issue a Case Management and Scheduling Order. The parties are directed to meet and confer in person in order to prepare an Amended Case Management Report, which they shall jointly file on or before April 3, 2017. Signed by Judge Sheri Polster Chappell on 3/17/2017. (LMF)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT MYERS DIVISION
LESLY METHELUS, ROSALBA ORTIZ,
ZOILA LORENZO, ANGE MARIE
JOSEPH, EMILE ANTOINE and
LUCENIE HILAIRE DUROSIER, on
behalf of Y.M., a minor, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly
situated
Plaintiffs,
v.

Case No: 2:16-cv-379-FtM-38MRM

THE SCHOOL BOARD OF COLLIER
COUNTY, FLORIDA and KAMELA
PATTON,
Defendants.
/
OPINION AND ORDER1
This matter comes before the Court on the Report and Recommendation of United
States Magistrate Judge Mac R. McCoy. (Doc. 26). Judge McCoy recommends denying
without prejudice Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification (Doc. 7) and referring this case
to him for entry of a Case Management and Scheduling Order. (Doc. 26). Plaintiffs object
to the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 29), to which Defendants have responded

1

Disclaimer: Documents filed in CM/ECF may contain hyperlinks to other documents or
websites. These hyperlinks are provided only for users’ convenience. Users are
cautioned that hyperlinked documents in CM/ECF are subject to PACER fees. By
allowing hyperlinks to other websites, this Court does not endorse, recommend, approve,
or guarantee any third parties or the services or products they provide on their websites.
Likewise, the Court has no agreements with any of these third parties or their websites.
The Court accepts no responsibility for the availability or functionality of any hyperlink.
Thus, the fact that a hyperlink ceases to work or directs the user to some other site does
not affect the opinion of the Court.

(Doc. 39). After a de novo review of the parties’ legal arguments, applicable law, and
recommended findings, the Court adopts and affirms the Report and Recommendation.
BACKGROUND
The facts of this case are discussed at length in the Report and Recommendation
and need not be detailed herein. However, the Court will discuss those facts relevant to
address the Report and Recommendation.

On May 18, 2016, Plaintiffs filed this

educational discrimination action for declaratory and injunctive relief. (Doc. 1). They
allege that Defendants violated the Equal Educational Opportunities Act of 1974, Title VI
of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection and Due
Process Clauses, and Florida Education Equity Act, Fla. Stat. § 1000.05 et seq. (Doc.
1). Plaintiffs shortly thereafter filed a Motion for Class Certification. (Doc. 7).
On July 18, 2016, Defendants moved to dismiss the Complaint. (Doc. 24). The
next day, Judge McCoy held a preliminary pretrial conference, at which the parties
discussed case-management deadlines. (Doc. 25).

The Court raised concerns that a

determination of the Motion for Class Certification may be premature in light of additional
class discovery possibly being needed and the motion to dismiss. After the preliminary
pretrial conference, Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint, which Defendants moved to
dismiss.
DISCUSSION
After conducting a careful and complete review of the findings and
recommendations, a district judge may accept, reject, or modify the magistrate judge's
report and recommendation. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Williams v. Wainwright, 681 F.2d
732 (11th Cir. 1982). In the absence of specific objections, there is no requirement that

2

a district judge review factual findings de novo, Garvey v. Vaughn, 993 F.2d 776, 779 n.9
(11th Cir. 1993), and the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the
findings and recommendations, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The district judge reviews legal
conclusions de novo, even in the absence of an objection. See Cooper-Houston v.
Southern Ry. Co., 37 F.3d 603, 604 (11th Cir. 1994).
After independently examining the file and upon carefully considering Judge
McCoy's findings and recommendations, the Court accepts the Report and
Recommendation (Doc. 26) over Plaintiffs’ objections.
Accordingly, it is now ORDERED:
The Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Mac R.
McCoy (Doc. 26) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED, and the finding incorporated erein.
(1) Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification (Doc. 7) is DENIED without prejudice.
(2) The matter is REFERRED to the Honorable Mac R. McCoy to hold a second
preliminary pretrial conference in order to (1) discuss both case-management
deadlines and a new motion for class certification deadline; and (2) issue a
Case Management and Scheduling Order.
(3) The parties are directed to meet and confer in person in order to prepare an
Amended Case Management Report, which they shall jointly file on or before
April 3, 2017.
DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida this 17th day of March, 2017.

Copies: All Parties of Record

3