Summary
denying motion for injunctive relief because Plaintiff's request for an injunction was not related to the underlying claims in his complaint
Summary of this case from McDonald v. FountainOpinion
Case No. 5:20-cv-198-Oc-34PRL
07-15-2020
JORGE ANIBAL TORRES PUELLO, Plaintiff, v. RAFAEL ANTONIO GUERRERO MENDEZ, et al., Defendants.
Copies to: Counsel of Record Pro Se Parties
ORDER
THIS CAUSE is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 15; First Report), entered by the Honorable Philip R. Lammens, United States Magistrate Judge, on June 15, 2020, and the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 19; Second Report) entered by Judge Lammens on June 23, 2020. In the First Report, Judge Lammens recommends that Plaintiff's Emergency Ex Parte Motion for Protection of Life and Property (Doc. 14) be denied. See First Report at 5. In the Second Report, Judge Lammens recommends that Plaintiff's Motion for Protection of Life and Property and Proof of Service (Doc. 17) also be denied. See Second Report at 5. No objections to the Reports have been filed, and the time for doing so has now passed.
The Court "may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the finding or recommendations by the magistrate judge." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). If no specific objections to findings of facts are filed, the district court is not required to conduct a de novo review of those findings. See Garvey v. Vaughn, 993 F.2d 776, 779 n.9 (11th Cir. 1993); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). However, the district court must review legal conclusions de novo. See Cooper-Houston v. Southern Ry. Co., 37 F.3d 603, 604 (11th Cir. 1994); United States v. Rice, No. 2:07-mc-8-FtM-29SPC, 2007 WL 1428615, at *1 (M.D. Fla. May 14, 2007).
Upon independent review of the file and for the reasons stated in the Magistrate Judge's Reports, the Court will accept and adopt the legal and factual conclusions recommended by the Magistrate Judge. Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED:
1. The Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (Doc. 15) is ADOPTED as the opinion of the Court.
2. Plaintiff's Emergency Ex Parte Motion for Protection of Life and Property (Doc. 14) is DENIED.
3. The Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (Doc. 19) is ADOPTED as the opinion of the Court.
4. Plaintiff's Motion for Protection of Life and Property and Proof of Service (Doc. 17) is DENIED.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers this 15th day of July, 2020.
/s/_________
MARCIA MORALES HOWARD
United States District Judge ja Copies to: Counsel of Record Pro Se Parties