Fernandez v. City of Fruitland Park et al

Filing 29

ORDER adopting 26 Report and Recommendation; granting, in part, and denying, in part, 19 Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint With Prejudice, or Alternatively, Motion to Strike. Count VI of the First Amended Complaint is dismissed. Defendant shall respond to the First Amended Complaint in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Signed by Judge Marcia Morales Howard on 2/23/2017. (JW)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
OCALA DIVISION
GEORGE FERNANDEZ,
Plaintiff,
vs.

Case No. 5:16-cv-326-Oc-34PRL

CITY OF FRUITLAND PARK,
Defendant.
______________________________________

ORDER
THIS CAUSE is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 26;
Report), entered by the Honorable Philip R. Lammens, United States Magistrate Judge, on
December 6, 2016. In the Report, Judge Lammens recommends that Defendant’s Motion
to Dismiss Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint With Prejudice, or Alternatively, Motion to
Strike With Memorandum of Law in Support (Dkt. No. 19) be denied as to Counts I - V and
granted as to Count VI. See Report at 19. The parties have failed to file objections to the
Report, and the time for doing so has now passed.
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 Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 26) of Judge Lammens is

ADOPTED as the opinion of the Court.
2.

Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint With

Prejudice, or Alternatively, Motion to Strike With Memorandum of Law in Support (Dkt. No.
19) is GRANTED, in part, and DENIED, in part.
A.

The Motion is GRANTED to the extent that Count VI of the First
Amended Complaint is DISMISSED.

B.
3.

Otherwise, the Motion is DENIED.

Defendant shall respond to the First Amended Complaint in accordance with

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
DONE and ORDERED in Chambers, this 23rd day of February, 2017.

-2-

ja
Copies to:
Counsel of Record

-3-