Owen v. Abia et al

Filing 10

ORDER Adopting 9 Report and Recommendations. Closing Case. Signed by Judge Darrin P. Gayles (hs01) NOTICE: If there are sealed documents in this case, they may be unsealed after 1 year or as directed by Court Order, unless they have been designated to be permanently sealed. See Local Rule 5.4 and Administrative Order 2014-69.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO. 17-21241-CIV-GAYLES/WHITE
CHARLES E. OWEN,
Plaintiff,
v.
DR. I. ABIA, et al.,
Defendants.
/

ORDER AFFIRMING AND ADOPTING REPORT OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE
THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on the Report of Magistrate Judge Regarding
Plaintiff’s Complaint and Motion to Stay Adjudication [ECF No. 9]. Plaintiff filed a pro se civil
rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging Defendants denied him medical care and/or
were deliberately indifferent to his medical needs [ECF No. 1]. The matter was referred to Judge
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]. Following an initial screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, Judge
White recommended that the Court (1) deny Plaintiff’s request to stay the action and (2) dismiss
Plaintiff’s Complaint without prejudice for failure to state a claim. Plaintiff has failed to timely
object to the 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 finds no clear error with Judge White’s well-reasoned analysis and agrees
that the matter must be dismissed.
Accordingly, after careful consideration, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
(1)

Judge White’s Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 9] is AFFIRMED AND
ADOPTED and incorporated into this Order by reference;

(2)

Plaintiff’s Motion to Stay Adjudication [ECF No. 5] is DENIED;

(3)

Plaintiff’s Complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to state a
claim. Should Plaintiff wish to amend his complaint, he must do so by August 1,
2017.

(4)

This action is CLOSED.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this 29th day of June, 2017.

________________________________
DARRIN P. GAYLES
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2