Reese-Lennell et al v. Judge Brent D. Shore

Filing 10

ORDER overruling 9 Plaintiffs' Objection; adopting 8 Report and Recommendation; dismissing case with prejudice. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close the file. Signed by Judge Marcia Morales Howard on 4/10/2018. (JW)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
JACKSONVILLE DIVISION
ONTERIA REESE-LENNELL and
ARTHUR REESE,
Plaintiffs,
Case No. 3:17-cv-724-J-34PDB
vs.
JUDGE BRENT D. SHORE,
Defendant.
/

ORDER
THIS CAUSE is before the Court on the Report & Recommendation (Dkt. No. 8;
Report), entered by the Honorable Patricia D. Barksdale, United States Magistrate Judge,
on March 6, 2018. In the Report, Judge Barksdale recommends that this case be
dismissed with prejudice. See Report at 1, 12.
The Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the finding or
recommendations 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).

-1-

On March 28, 2018, Plaintiffs belatedly filed their Objection to Order and Affidavit
of Truth and Facts (Dkt. No. 9; Objection). Although Plaintiffs filed the Objection more
than fourteen days after the entry of the Report, the Court, in an abundance of caution,
reviewed the Objection and has considered its content.

While Plaintiffs state their

“OBJECTION” to the Report, they fail to identify any factual or legal finding made in the
Report which they believe to be in error. Indeed, Plaintiffs do not address any of the
findings recommended in the Report.

Instead, they simply repeat the factual

circumstances and legal arguments set forth in their Amended Complaint (Dkt. No. 4).
The Court finds these arguments lacking in legal merit. Upon independent review of the
file and for the reasons stated in the Magistrate Judge’s Report, the Court will overrule
the Objection and accept and adopt the legal and factual conclusions recommended by
the Magistrate Judge. Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED:
1. Plaintiffs’ Objection to Order and Affidavit of Truth and Facts (Dkt. No. 9) is
OVERRULED.
2. The Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 8) is
ADOPTED as the opinion of the Court.
3. This case is DISMISSED with prejudice.

-2-

4. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate all pending motions and deadlines
as moot and close the file.
DONE AND ORDERED in Jacksonville, Florida, this 10th day of April, 2018.

ja
Copies to:
Counsel of Record
Pro Se Parties

-3-