Maritato v. PTI

Filing 8

ORDER Adopting 7 Report and Recommendations ; granting 3 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis. Closing Case. Signed by Judge K. Michael Moore on 8/28/2024. See attached document for full details. (gbn)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case No. 2:24-cv-14228-KMM
GENNARO MARITATO,
Plaintiff,
v.
PTI,
Defendant.

/
ORDER

THIS CAUSE came before the Court upon the Report and Recommendation of the
Honorable Ryon M. McCabe, United States Magistrate Judge. (“R&R”) (ECF No. 7). The matter
was referred to Magistrate Judge McCabe, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 and the Magistrate Judge
Rules of the Local Rules of the Southern District of Florida, to take all necessary and proper action
as required by law regarding all pre-trial, non-dispositive matters and for a Report and
Recommendation on any dispositive matters. (ECF No. 6). Magistrate Judge McCabe issued a
R&R, recommending that Plaintiff’s pro se Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (ECF No.
3) be GRANTED and that Plaintiff’s Complaint (ECF No. 1) be DISMISSED without prejudice
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Neither Defendant nor Plaintiff objected to the R&R. The
matter is now ripe for review. As set forth below, the Court ADOPTS the R&R.
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.
Yet when a party has failed to object or 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.” See Keaton v. United States, No. 14-21230-CIV, 2015 WL
12780912, at *1 (S.D. Fla. May 4, 2015); see also Lopez v. Berryhill, No. 17-CV-24263, 2019 WL
2254704, at *2 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 26, 2019) (stating that a district judge “evaluate[s] portions of the
R & R not objected to under a clearly erroneous standard of review” (citing Davis v. Apfel, 93 F.
Supp. 2d 1313, 1317 (M.D. Fla. 2000))).
This is a patent infringement case. See (ECF No. 1). The Complaint consists of one
sentence: “I have a design patent on a ski board that resembles a product manufactured by
Defendant.” (ECF No. 1) at 4. Accordingly, Magistrate Judge McCabe finds that the Complaint
does not set forth sufficient facts to state any plausible legal cause of action, leaving “basic
questions unanswered.” R&R at 3. Magistrate Judge McCabe recommends that the Court (1) find
that Plaintiff meets the necessary financial standard to proceed in forma pauperis, and (2) dismiss
the Complaint without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) for failure to state a claim.
See R&R at 3–4.
The Court received no objections to the aforementioned findings in the R&R. Upon a
review of the record, the Court finds no clear error with Magistrate Judge McCabe’s findings.
Accordingly, UPON CONSIDERATION of the R&R, the pertinent portions of the record,
and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that
the R&R (ECF No. 7) is ADOPTED. Plaintiff’s pro se Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis

2

(ECF No. 3) is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s Complaint (ECF No. 1) is DISMISSED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE. Plaintiff may file an Amended Complaint to attempt to cure the deficiencies
identified in the R&R no later than September 18, 2024.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this ______
day of August, 2024.
28th

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

3