Bell v. Johnson et al
Filing
56
ORDER adopting 42 Report and Recommendation; granting 23 Defendant Martin's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, or in the Alternative, Motion to Dismiss; dismissing with prejudice the claims raised against Defendant Martin; denying 39 Plaintiff's Motion to Amend. Plaintiff's show cause response due no later than February 27, 2017. Signed by Judge Marcia Morales Howard on 2/7/2017. (JW)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
JACKSONVILLE DIVISION
RENZER BELL,
Plaintiff,
vs.
Case No. 3:15-cv-693-J-34JBT
CHERI JOHNSON, et al.,
Defendants.
_____________________________________/
ORDER
THIS CAUSE is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 42;
Report), entered by the Honorable Joel B. Toomey, United States Magistrate Judge, on
September 14, 2016. In the Report, Magistrate Judge Toomey recommends that 1.)
Defendant Martin’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, or in the Alternative, Motion to
Dismiss (Dkt. No. 23) be granted, and the claims against Defendant Martin be dismissed
with prejudice; 2.) Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend (Dkt. No. 39) be denied; and 3.) Plaintiff be
directed to show cause why the remaining claims should not be dismissed with prejudice.
See Report at 2, 16. Despite being granted three lengthy extensions of time to file
objections and being advised that no further extensions would be granted, see Orders (Dkt.
Nos. 47, 51, 55), Plaintiff has failed to file objections to the Report.
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 facts are filed, the district court is not required to conduct a de novo
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 legal conclusions
de novo. See Cooper-Houston v. Southern 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).
Upon independent review of the file and for the reasons stated in the Magistrate
Judge’s Report, the Court will accept and adopt the legal and factual conclusions
recommended by the Magistrate Judge. Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED:
1.
The Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 42) is
ADOPTED as the opinion of the Court.
2.
Defendant Martin’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, or in the
Alternative, Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. No. 23) is GRANTED, and the claims raised against
Defendant Martin in the Complaint are DISMISSED with prejudice.
3.
Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend (Dkt. No. 39) is DENIED.
4.
Plaintiff shall show cause by a written response filed no later than February
27, 2017, why the claims against the remaining Defendants should not be dismissed with
prejudice for the reasons set forth in the Report.
DONE AND ORDERED in Jacksonville, Florida, this 7th day of February, 2017.
-2-
ja
Copies to:
Counsel of Record
Pro Se Parties
-3-
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?