Bait Productions Pty Ltd. v. Does 1-82

Filing 12

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. With the exception of cases 8:12-cv-02465-JSM-TGW and 8:12-cv-02468-JSM-MAP, all Bait Productions cases in the Middle District of Florida (pending and future) shall be assigned to the undersigned District Judge with the Honorable Mark A. Pizzo to be assigned as Magistrate Judge. Signed by Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington on 1/17/2013. (KAK)

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

Case No. 8:12-cv-2464-T-33MAP

DOES 1-36,
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, which was filed in the
present case as well as in the related cases listed in Exhibit
A.

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 of this Order.

Judge

Baker also recommends that all Bait Production cases in the
Middle District (pending and future) be assigned to a single
District-Magistrate Judge pair to facilitate consistent case
management.
Bait Productions filed a timely Objection to the Report
and Recommendation.

However, upon consideration, the Court

overrules

the

Recommendation
exception.

Objection
of

The

the

and

adopts

Magistrate

Court

does

the

Judge

with

adopt

the

not

Report
a

and

specific

Report

and

Recommendation to the extent that it recommends that all
present

Bait

Productions

cases

District-Magistrate judge pair.

be

assigned

to

a

single

Two of the related cases

(8:12-cv-02465-JSM-TGW and 8:12-cv-02468-JSM-MAP) will not be
reassigned because the presiding District judge elected to
retain these cases.

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
-2-

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
recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, with the limited
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)

With the exception of cases 8:12-cv-02465-JSM-TGW and
8:12-cv-02468-JSM-MAP, all Bait Productions cases in the
Middle District of Florida (pending and future) shall be
-3-

assigned to the undersigned District Judge with the
Honorable Mark A. Pizzo to be assigned as Magistrate
Judge.
DONE and ORDERED in Tampa, Florida, this 17th day of
January, 2013.

Copies: All Counsel and Parties of Record

-4-

EXHIBIT A
RELATED CASES
2:12-cv-00628-VMC-DNF Bait Productions Pty Ltd. v. Does 1-26
2:12-cv-00629-VMC-DNF Bait Productions Pty Ltd. v. Does 1-44
3:12-cv-01204-VMC-JRK Bait Productions Pty Ltd. v. Does 1-66
3:12-cv-01205-VMC-JBT Bait Productions Pty Ltd. v. Does 1-42
3:12-cv-01252-VMC-JBT Bait Productions Pty Ltd. v. Does 1-71
3:12-cv-01274-VMC-TEM Bait Productions Pty Ltd. v. Does 1-78
5:12-cv-00644-VMC-PRL Bait Productions Pty Ltd. v. Does 1-40
5:12-cv-00645-VMC-PRL Bait Productions Pty Ltd. v Does 1-36
6:12-cv-01637-VMC-DAB Bait Productions Pty Ltd. v. Does 1-73
6:12-cv-01721-VMC-GJK Bait Productions Pty Ltd. v. Does 1-31
6:12-cv-01779-VMC-TBS Bait Productions Pty Ltd. v. Does 1-81
6:12-cv-01780-VMC-DAB Bait Productions Pty Ltd. v. Does 1-96
8:12-cv-02464-VMC-MAP Bait Productions Pty Ltd. v. Does 1-36
8:12-cv-02466-VMC-MAP Bait Productions Pty Ltd. v. Does 1-70
8:12-cv-02467-VMC-AEP Bait Productions Pty Ltd. v. Does 1-72

8:12-cv-02469-VMC-TGW Bait Productions Pty Ltd. v. Does 1-71
8:12-cv-02471-VMC-TGW Bait Productions Pty Ltd. v. Does 1-64
8:12-cv-02554-VMC-TGW Bait Productions Pty Ltd. v. Does 1-72
8:12-cv-02556-VMC-TGW Bait Productions Pty Ltd. v. Does 1-52
8:12-cv-02642-VMC-MAP Bait Productions Pty Ltd. v. Does 1-95
8:12-cv-02643-VMC-TBM Bait Productions Pty Ltd. v. Does 1-82