Jernazian v. Miami-Dade Public Library System

Filing 9

ORDER Adopting 8 Report and Recommendation. on 11/21/2022. See attached document for full details. (rfr)

Case 1:22-cv-23023-KMM Document 9 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/21/2022 Page 1 of 4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case No. 1:22-cv-23023-KMM
TASH JERNAZIAN,
v.

Plaintiffs,

MIAMI-DADE PUBLIC LIBRARY,
Defendant.

/
ORDER ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

THIS CAUSE came before the Court upon the Report and Recommendation of the
Honorable Lauren F. Louis, United States Magistrate Judge. (“R&R”) (ECF No. 8). Therein,
Magistrate Judge Louis recommends that the Court dismiss the action without prejudice. Id. at 3.
Pro se Plaintiff Tash Jernazian failed to file an objection to the R&R and the time do to so has
passed. The matter is now ripe for review. As set forth below, the Court ADOPTS the Report and
Recommendation.
I.

BACKGROUND
Plaintiff Tash Jernazian commenced this action against Defendant Miami-Dade Public

Library. In the Complaint (ECF No. 1), Plaintiff states that Defendant “caused them violence” by
“allow[ing] and foster[ing] a culture [of] harassment within the County Library System.” Id. at 2.
Plaintiff further states that there were “mask harassed within government library buildings,” and
Plaintiff was “denied fair access to the library and various public resources.” Id.
On September 22, 2022, the Court referred this case to Magistrate Judge Louis to “take all
necessary and proper action as required by law regarding all pre-trial, non-dispositive matters

Case 1:22-cv-23023-KMM Document 9 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/21/2022 Page 2 of 4

including discovery, and for a Report and Recommendation on any dispositive matters.” (ECF
No. 5). On September 27, 2022, Magistrate Judge Louis entered an Order to Show Cause (ECF
No. 6), observing that Plaintiff had failed to file a civil cover sheet upon initiating this action, in
violation of Local Rule 3.3, and had further failed to file the civil cover sheet within 24 hours after
being instructed to do so by the Clerk of Court. Magistrate Judge Louis accordingly ordered
Plaintiff to show good cause why Plaintiff failed to comply with the Clerk of Court’s instruction
to file a Notice, attaching the completed civil cover sheet, within 24 hours. Cause (ECF No. 6).
Plaintiff has not responded to the Order to Show Cause and the time to do so has passed.
On November 1, 2022, upon a sua sponte review of the record, Magistrate Judge Louis
issued a Report and Recommendation, recommending that the matter be dismissed without
prejudice. See generally R&R.
II.

LEGAL STANDARD
The Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or

recommendations made by the magistrate judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3).
The Court “must determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition that has been
properly objected to.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). A de novo review is therefore required if a party
files “a proper, specific objection” to a factual finding contained in the report. Macort v. Prem,
Inc., 208 F. App’x 781, 784 (11th Cir. 2006). “It is critical that the objection be sufficiently
specific and not a general objection to the report” to warrant de novo review. Id.
However, a party’s objections are improper if they expand upon and reframe arguments
already made and considered by the magistrate judge, or simply disagree with the magistrate
judge’s conclusions. See Melillo v. United States, No. 17-CV-80489, 2018 WL 4258355, at *1
(S.D. Fla. Sept. 6, 2018); see also Marlite, Inc. v. Eckenrod, No. 10-23641-CIV, 2012 WL

2

Case 1:22-cv-23023-KMM Document 9 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/21/2022 Page 3 of 4

3614212, at *2 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 21, 2012) (“It is improper for an objecting party to . . . submit [ ]
papers to a district court which are nothing more than a rehashing of the same arguments and
positions taken in the original papers submitted to the Magistrate Judge. Clearly, parties are not
to be afforded a ‘second bite at the apple’ when they file objections to a R & R.” (quoting Camardo
v. Gen. Motors Hourly-Rate Emps. Pension Plan, 806 F. Supp. 380, 382 (W.D.N.Y. 1992))).
When the objecting party has not properly objected to the magistrate judge’s findings, “the
court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept
the recommendation.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) advisory committee’s note to 1983 addition; see Lopez
v. Berryhill, No. 1:17-CV-24263, 2019 WL 2254704, at *2 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 26, 2019) (stating that
a district judge must “evaluate portions of the R & R not objected to under a clearly erroneous
standard of review.”).
III.

DISCUSSION
As set forth in the R&R, Magistrate Judge Louis recommends dismissing Plaintiff’s

Complaint without prejudice because the Complaint “lacks sufficient factual context, as it does
not allege facts explaining the role the named defendant had in the domestic violence Plaintiff
experienced.” R&R at 2. Furthermore, Magistrate Judge Louis states that the Complaint fails to
allege a basis for this Court’s jurisdiction and Plaintiff failed to comply with Court orders in
violation of Local Rule 3.3. See generally R&R. The Court agrees.
IV.

CONCLUSION
Accordingly, UPON CONSIDERATION of the report and recommendation, the pertinent

portions of the record, and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, it is hereby ORDERED
AND ADJUDGED that Magistrate Judge Louis’s R&R (ECF No. 8) is ADOPTED. This case is

3

Case 1:22-cv-23023-KMM Document 9 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/21/2022 Page 4 of 4

DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The Clerk of Court is INSTRUCTED to CLOSE this
case. All pending motions, if any, are DENIED AS MOOT.
18th day of November, 2022.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida this ____

K. MICHAEL MOORE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
c: All counsel of record

4