Scott v. Miami Dade County et al

Filing 225

ORDER granting 162 Defendant Miami-Dade County's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs Second Amended Complaint; Adopting 170 Report and Recommendations; granting 206 Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Jane Doe; denying 208 Motion to Dismiss C ase as Sanction for Plaintiff's Failure to Follow the Court's Order to Provide Complete Responses to Discovery Requests; Adopting 216 Report and Recommendations; Adopting 217 Report and Recommendations. Signed by Judge Darrin P. Gayles (hs01)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
MIAMI DIVISION
CASE NO. 13-23013-CIV-GAYLES/WHITE
PLEADRO J. SCOTT,
Plaintiff,
v..
MIAMI DADE DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS
et al.,
Defendants.
_________________________________________/
ORDER
THIS CAUSE came before the Court on Defendant Miami-Dade County’s Motion to
Dismiss Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint [ECF No. 162]; Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss
Jane Doe [ECF No. 206]; and Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Case as Sanction for Plaintiff’s
Failure to Follow the Court’s Order to Provide Complete Responses to Discovery Requests [ECF
No. 208]. The matter was previously referred to Magistrate Judge Patrick White, pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Administrative Order 2003-19 of this Court, for a ruling on all
pretrial, non-dispositive matters, and for a Report and Recommendation on any dispositive matters.
[ECF No. 3]. On December 13, 2016, Judge White issued a Report recommending that the Court
grant Miami-Dade County’s Motion to Dismiss (the “County Dismissal Report”) [ECF No. 170].
On June 26, 2017, Judge White issued one Report recommending that the Court grant Defendants’
Motion to Dismiss Jane Doe (the “Jane Doe Report”) [ECF No. 216] and another Report
recommending that the Court deny Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Case as Sanction for Plaintiff’s
Failure to Follow the Court’s Order to Provide Complete Responses to Discovery Requests (the

“Sanction Report”) [ECF No. 217]. Plaintiff has objected to the County Dismissal Report and the
Jane Doe Report.
A district court may accept, reject, or modify a magistrate judge’s report and
recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Those portions of the report and recommendation to
which objection is made are accorded de novo review, if those objections “pinpoint the specific
findings that the party disagrees with.” United States v. Schultz, 565 F.3d 1353, 1360 (11th Cir.
2009); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). Any portions of the report and recommendation to which
no specific objection is made are reviewed only for clear error. Liberty Am. Ins. Grp., Inc. v.
WestPoint Underwriters, L.L.C., 199 F. Supp. 2d 1271, 1276 (M.D. Fla. 2001); accord Macort v.
Prem, Inc., 208 F. App’x 781, 784 (11th Cir. 2006).
This Court, having conducted a de novo review of the Motions and the record, agrees
with Judge White’s well-reasoned analysis and agrees with his findings.
Accordingly, after careful consideration, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
(1)

Judge White’s Report and Recommendations [ECF Nos. 170, 216, 217] are
AFFIRMED AND ADOPTED and incorporated into this Order by reference;

(2)

Defendant Miami-Dade County’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Second Amended
Complaint [ECF No. 162] is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s claims against Miami-Dade
County are DISMISSED.

(3)

Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Jane Doe [ECF No. 206] is GRANTED. All
claims against Jane Doe are DISMISSED and Jane Doe is administratively
terminated as a party to this action.

2

(4)

Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Case as Sanction for Plaintiff’s Failure to Follow
the Court’s Order to Provide Complete Responses to Discovery Requests [ECF
No. 208] is DENIED.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this 4th day of August, 2017.

__________________________________________
DARRIN P. GAYLES
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3