Bait Productions Pty Ltd. v. Does 1-71

Filing 16

ORDER: The Report and Recommendation is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in part. All claims except those asserted against Doe 1 are SEVERED and DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Bait Productions may re-file separate actions against as many of the Doe Defendants a s Bait Productions wishes to pursue, with a new filing fee to be paid as to each Defendant, WITHIN FOURTEEN DAYS OF THE DATE OF THIS ORDER. The Court rejects the recommendation that all Bait Productions cases in the Middle District of Florida (pending and future) be assigned to a single District Judge-Magistrate Judge pair. Signed by Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington on 1/25/2013. (KAK)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
BAIT PRODUCTIONS PTY LTD.,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 8:12-cv-2469-T-33TGW

DOES 1-71,
Defendants.
_______________________________/
ORDER
This matter is before the Court on consideration of
United States Magistrate Judge David A. Baker’s December 14,
2012,

Report

and

Recommendation,

in

which

Judge

Baker

recommends that all of Bait Productions PYT LTD.’s claims,
except those asserted against the respective Doe 1 Defendants
be severed and that Bait Productions be ordered to file
separate complaints against the other Doe Defendants against
whom it wishes to proceed, along with separate filing fees,
within 14 days.

Judge Baker also recommends that all Bait

Production cases in the Middle District (pending and future)
be assigned to a single District Judge-Magistrate Judge pair.
Bait Productions filed a timely Objection to the Report
and Recommendation.
overrules

the

However, upon consideration, the Court

Objection

and

adopts

the

Report

Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge in part.

and

The Court

does not adopt the Report and Recommendation to the extent
that

it

recommends

that

all

present

and

future

Bait

Productions cases be assigned to a single District JudgeMagistrate

Judge

pair.

The

Report

and

Recommendation

is

adopted in all other respects.
Discussion
After conducting a careful and complete review of the
findings and recommendations, a district judge may accept,
reject

or

modify

the

magistrate

judge’s

report

and

recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Williams v. Wainwright,
681 F.2d 732 (11th Cir. 1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1112
(1983).

In the absence of specific objections, there is no

requirement that a district judge review factual findings de
novo, Garvey v. Vaughn, 993 F.2d 776, 779 n.9 (11th Cir.
1993), and the court may accept, reject or modify, in whole or
in part, the findings and recommendations.

28 U.S.C. §

636(b)(1)(C). The district judge reviews legal conclusions de
novo, even in the absence of an objection. See Cooper-Houston
v. S. Ry. Co., 37 F.3d 603, 604 (11th Cir. 1994); Castro
Bobadilla v. Reno, 826 F. Supp. 1428, 1431-32 (S.D. Fla.
1993), aff’d, 28 F.3d 116 (11th Cir. 1994) (Table).
After conducting a careful and complete review of the
findings, conclusions and recommendations, and giving de novo
review to matters of law, the Court accepts the factual
findings and legal conclusions of the Magistrate Judge and the

-2-

recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, with the exception
noted above.
Accordingly, it is now
ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED:
(1)

The Report and Recommendation is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in
part.

(2)

All claims except those asserted against Doe 1 are
SEVERED and DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

(3)

Bait Productions may re-file separate actions against as
many of the Doe Defendants as Bait Productions wishes to
pursue, with a new filing fee to be paid as to each
Defendant, WITHIN FOURTEEN DAYS OF THE DATE OF THIS
ORDER.

(4)

The

Court

rejects

the

recommendation

that

all

Bait

Productions cases in the Middle District of Florida
(pending and future) be assigned to a single District
Judge-Magistrate Judge pair.
DONE and ORDERED in Tampa, Florida, this 25th day of
January, 2013.

Copies: All Counsel and Parties of Record

-3-