Opinion
5:23cv140-TKW/MJF
09-03-2024
JEREMY A. JONES, Plaintiff, v. BRIA M. EUSTICE, Defendant.
ORDER
T. KENT WETHERELL, II UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
This case is before the Court based on the magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation (R&R) (Doc. 37). Defendant filed an objection to the R&R (Doc. 39), but Plaintiff did not. No response to Defendant's objection is needed.
Upon de novo review of the issues raised in Defendant's objection under 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(3), the Court agrees with the magistrate judge's determination that his motion to dismiss should granted in part because second amended complaint fails to state a plausible First Amendment retaliation claim. The Court also agrees that the motion to dismiss should be denied in all other respects, but the Court finds that the motion should be denied on the merits (rather than as premature) with respect to Defendant's argument concerning the issue of punitive damages. See, e.g., Flores v. Pugh, Case No. 3:24cv68, ECF No. 27, at 1011 (N.D. Fla. July 12, 2024), report and recommendation adopted, ECF No. 35 (N.D. Fla. Aug. 12, 2024); Santiago v. Walden, 2024 WL 2895319, at *8 (M.D. Fla. June 10, 2024); Blake v. Ortega, 2024 WL 2000107, at *4 (N.D. Fla. Mar. 18, 2024), report and recommendation adopted, 2024 WL 1996014 (N.D. Fla. May 6, 2024).
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that:
1. The magistrate judge's R&R is adopted and incorporated by reference in this Order, except as noted above.
2. Defendant's motion to dismiss (Doc. 31) is GRANTED in part, and any First Amendment retaliation claim in the second amended complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice for failure to state a claim. The motion is DENIED in all other respects.
3. This case is returned to the magistrate judge for further proceedings on Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment claim against Defendant.
DONE AND ORDERED.