Bowden v. Stokely et al

Filing 36

ORDER granting 34 Defendants' Motion for Leave to Amend the Objection to the Report and Recommendation, or in the Alternative Notice of Supplemental Authority; overruling 33 Defendants' Objections to the Report and Recommendation; adop ting 32 Report and Recommendation; granting, in part, and denying, in part, 26 Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. The claims raised against Defendant Norris are dismissed with prejudice. Signed by Judge Marcia Morales Howard on 8/22/2013. (JW)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
JACKSONVILLE DIVISION
CHRISTOPHER BOWDEN,
Plaintiff,
vs.

Case No.3:12-cv-652-J-99MMH-JRK

ROBERT STOKELY, et. al.,
Defendants.
_____________________________________/

ORDER

THIS CAUSE is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 32;
Report), entered by the Honorable James R. Klindt, United States Magistrate Judge, on July
2, 2013. In the Report, Magistrate Judge Klindt recommends that Defendants’ Motion for
Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 26) be granted, in part, and denied, in part. See Report at
33. On July 17, 2013, Defendants filed objections to the Report. See Defendants’ Objection
to the Report and Recommendation Regarding Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment
(Doc. No. 33; Objections); Defendants’ Motion for Leave to Amend the Objection to the
Report and Recommendation, or in the Alternative Notice of Supplemental Authority (Doc.
No. 34; Motion for Leave).1 Thus, this matter is ripe for review.
The Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or
recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). If no specific
objections to findings of fact are filed, the district court is not required to conduct a de novo
1

The Court will grant the Motion for Leave and consider the arguments therein in determining
whether to accept or reject the Report.

review of those findings. See Garvey v. Vaughn, 993 F.2d 776, 779 n.9 (11th Cir. 1993);
see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

However, the district court must review the legal

conclusions in the report de novo. See Cooper-Houston v. S. Ry. Co., 37 F.3d 603, 604
(11th Cir. 1994); United States v. Rice, No. 2:07-mc-8-FtM-29SPC, 2007 WL 1428615, at
*1 (M.D. Fla. May 14, 2007); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
Upon independent review of the file and for the reasons stated in the Magistrate
Judge’s Report, the Court determines that Defendants’ Objections to the Magistrate Judge’s
findings are due to be overruled, and the Report and Recommendation is due to be adopted
as the opinion of the Court. Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED:
1.

Defendants’ Motion for Leave to Amend the Objection to the Report and

Recommendation, or in the Alternative Notice of Supplemental Authority (Doc. No. 34) is
GRANTED.
2.

Defendants’ Objections to the Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 33) are

OVERRULED.
3.

The Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 32) is

ADOPTED as the opinion of the Court.
4.

Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 26) is GRANTED, in

part, and DENIED, in part, as follows:
a.

Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED to the

extent that all claims against Defendant Norris are DISMISSED WITH
PREJUDICE.
-2-

b.

Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment as to Defendants Stokley

and Hall is DENIED.
DONE AND ORDERED at Jacksonville, Florida, this 22nd day of August, 2013.

i21
Copies to:
Honorable James R. Klindt
United States Magistrate Judge
Counsel of Record
Pro Se Plaintiff

-3-