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)

Download PDF
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-

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?