Palma et al v. Metro PCS Wireless, Inc.

Filing 111

ORDER: The Report and Recommendation of the Honorable Mark A. Pizzo 100 is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED. Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction and/or Protective Order 57 is DENIED. Signed by Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington on 9/13/2013. (KAK)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION KAREN PALMA and HALLIE SELGERT, Plaintiffs, v. Case No. 8:13-cv-698-T-33MAP METROPCS WIRELESS, INC., Defendant. _______________________________/ ORDER This matter is before the Court on consideration of the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Mark A. Pizzo (Doc. # 100), filed on August 9, 2013, in which Judge Pizzo recommends that Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction and/or Protective Order (Doc. # 57) be denied. Plaintiffs filed an objection to the Report and Recommendation Defendant filed on August a 23, response to 2013 (Doc. Plaintiffs’ # 103), objection and on September 6, 2013 (Doc. # 107). After careful consideration and being fully advised in the premises, the Court adopts the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge and overrules the filed objection. Discussion 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). of specific objections, there is no In the absence 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. Ry. Co., 37 F.3d 603, 604 See Cooper-Houston v. S. (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). Upon due consideration of the entire record, including the Report and Recommendation and Plaintiffs’ objection thereto, the Court overrules the objection and adopts the Report and Recommendation. The Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s finding that Plaintiffs failed to meet their burden injunction. for the imposition of a preliminary In addition, Plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that the entry of a protective order was required. 2    The Report and Recommendation thoughtfully addresses the issues presented, and Plaintiffs’ arguments raised in the objection do not provide a basis for rejecting the Report and Recommendation. Accordingly, it is ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED: (1) The Report and Recommendation of the Honorable Mark A. Pizzo (Doc. # 100) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED. (2) Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction and/or Protective Order (Doc. # 57) is DENIED. DONE and ORDERED in Chambers in Tampa, Florida, this 13th day of September, 2013. Copies: All Counsel of Record   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?