Patterson v. Orlando-Orange County et al

Filing 82

ORDER granting 35 motion to dismiss; Granting 37 motion to dismiss; Granting 46 motion to dismiss; Granting 49 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim; Granting 60 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim; Granting [22 ] motion to dismiss; Granting 29 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim; Granting 29 Motion for More Definite Statement. Adopting Report and Recommendations - re 73 Report and Recommendations. The Complaint (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED with prejudice as to DefendantsRodriguez-Fonts and Bigney. The Complaint (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED without prejudice as to the remaining Defendants. On or before December 17, 2018, Plaintiff may file an amended complaint.. Signed by Judge Carlos E. Mendoza on 11/29/2018. (DJD)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
ORLANDO DIVISION

DIMITRI PATTERSON,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No: 6:18-cv-950-Orl-41GJK

ORLANDO-ORANGE COUNTY,
MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, HILTON
WORLDWIDE HOLDINGS, INC.,
CORNITA RILEY, JEANETTE
BIGNEY, ALFREDO ZAMORA and
OSCAR RODRIGUEZ-FONTS,
Defendants.
/
ORDER
THIS CAUSE is before the Court on Defendant Oscar Rodriguez-Font’s Motion to Dismiss
(Doc. 22), Defendant Miami-Dade County’s Motion to Dismiss and for a More Definite Statement
(Doc. 29), City of Orlando’s 1 Amended Motion to Dismiss Complaint and Alternatively to Quash
Service of Process (Doc. 35), Defendant Hilton Worldwide Holdings, Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss
(Doc. 37), Defendant Jeanette Bigney’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 46), Defendant Alfredo Zamora’s
Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 49), and Defendant Cornita Riley’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 60). United
States Magistrate Judge Gregory J. Kelly submitted a Report and Recommendation (“R&R,” Doc.
73), recommending that the Court (1) grant each of the abovementioned motions, (2) dismiss the
Complaint (Doc. 1) with prejudice as to Defendants Rodriguez-Fonts and Bigney, (3) dismiss the
Complaint without prejudice as to the remaining Defendants, (4) allow Plaintiff to amend the
Complaint, and (5) allow Plaintiff to re-attempt service of process on the City of Orlando. Plaintiff

1

City of Orlando is incorrectly identified in the Complaint as Orlando-Orange County.
Page 1 of 3

filed an Objection (Doc. 74) to the R&R, to which several Defendants filed Responses (Doc. Nos.
77–80).
In the R&R, Judge Kelly found that Defendants Rodriguez-Fonts and Bigney were entitled
to absolute immunity because their actions constituted normal judicial functions by judges. (Doc.
73 at 10). Therefore, Judge Kelly concluded that Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants RodriguezFonts and Bigney are due to be dismissed with prejudice. (Id. at 11). Additionally, Judge Kelly
found that Plaintiff failed to state a claim against any of the remaining Defendants as Plaintiff’s
Complaint contained only conclusory allegations. (Id. at 11–15). Lastly, Judge Kelly determined
that Plaintiff’s attempted service of the City of Orlando is due to be quashed and recommended
that Plaintiff be allowed to serve the City properly. (Id. at 16).
In his Objection, Plaintiff asserts that Defendants Rodriguez-Fonts and Bigney are not
entitled to absolute immunity because their actions against Plaintiff do not qualify as judicial acts.
(Doc. 74 at 2–3). Moreover, Plaintiff argues that the Complaint contains sufficient factual support
to state a claim for relief against the remaining Defendants. (Id. at 4). 2 However, Plaintiff has
already presented these arguments in his responses to the motions to dismiss, (see Doc. 41 at 5–6;
Doc. 42 at 2, 4–5; Doc. 52 at 2; Doc. 57 at 5–6; Doc. 58 at 2; Doc. 68 at 2), and they have been
appropriately addressed by Judge Kelly. Because the Court agrees with Judge Kelly’s analysis,
Plaintiff’s claims as to the remaining Defendants will be dismissed without prejudice. Plaintiff will
be given the opportunity to amend his complaint and to properly serve the City of Orlando.
After a de novo review of the record, the Court agrees with the analysis set forth in the
R&R. Accordingly, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED as follows:

2

Plaintiff does not appear to object to Judge Kelly’s recommendation that the Court grant
the City of Orlando’s Amended Motion to Dismiss Complaint and Alternatively to Quash Service
of Process and allow Plaintiff another attempt to serve the City.
Page 2 of 3

1. The Report and Recommendation (Doc. 73) is ADOPTED and CONFIRMED
and made a part of this Order.
2. Defendant Oscar Rodriguez-Font’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 22) is GRANTED.
3. Defendant Miami-Dade County’s Motion to Dismiss and for a More Definite
Statement (Doc. 29) is GRANTED.
4. City of Orlando’s Amended Motion to Dismiss Complaint and Alternatively to
Quash Service of Process (Doc. 35) is GRANTED.
5. Defendant Hilton Worldwide Holdings, Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 37) is
GRANTED.
6. Defendant Jeanette Bigney’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 46) is GRANTED.
7. Defendant Alfredo Zamora’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 49) is GRANTED.
8. Defendant Cornita Riley’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 60) is GRANTED.
9. The Complaint (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED with prejudice as to Defendants
Rodriguez-Fonts and Bigney.
10. The Complaint (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED without prejudice as to the remaining
Defendants.
11. On or before December 17, 2018, Plaintiff may file an amended complaint.
DONE and ORDERED in Orlando, Florida on November 29, 2018.

Copies furnished to:
Counsel of Record
Unrepresented Party
Page 3 of 3