Opinion
21-CIV-60723-RAR
09-15-2021
COREY J. ZINMAN, Plaintiff, v. NOVA SOUTHEASTERN UNIVERSITY, et al., Defendants.
ORDER AFFIRMING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND DISMISSING CASE
RODOLFO A. RUIZ II UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon United States Magistrate Judge Jared M. Strauss's Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 81] (“Report”), entered on August 30, 2021. The Report recommends that the Court (1) deny Plaintiff's Motion for Sanctions [ECF No. 42]; (2) grant Defendants' Broward County, Bertha Henry, and Miami-Dade County's First Motion to Dismiss [ECF No. 43]; (3) grant Defendants' Nova Southeastern University, Inc. and South Florida Stadium LLC's Second Motion to Dismiss [ECF No. 44]; and (4) deny Plaintiff's Motion to Strike [ECF No. 53]. Report at 1. Plaintiff filed objections to the Report on September 14, 2021 [ECF No. 85] (“Objections”).
When a magistrate judge's “disposition” has been properly objected to, district courts must review the disposition de novo. Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(3). Because Plaintiff timely filed objections to the Report, the Court has conducted a de novo review of Magistrate Judge Strauss's legal and factual findings. Having carefully reviewed the Second Amended Complaint [ECF No. 38], Plaintiff's Motion for Sanctions [ECF No. 42], Defendants' First Motion to Dismiss [ECF No. 43], Defendants' Second Motion to Dismiss [ECF No. 44], Plaintiff's Motion to Strike [ECF No. 53], Plaintiffs Amended Responses in Opposition to Defendants' First and Second Motions to Dismiss [ECF Nos. 58; 59], Defendants' Replies to Plaintiffs Responses [ECF Nos. 62; 64], the Report, the Objections, the factual record, the applicable law, and being otherwise fully advised, it is hereby
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
1. The Report [ECF No. 81] is AFFIRMED AND ADOPTED.
2. Defendant's First Motion to Dismiss [ECF No. 43] is GRANTED.
3. Defendant's Second Motion to Dismiss [ECF No. 44] is GRANTED.
4. Plaintiffs Motion for Sanctions [ECF No. 42] is DENIED.
5. Plaintiffs Motion to Strike is DENIED as moot.
6. Plaintiffs requests for injunctive and declaratory relief are DISMISSED without prejudice (based upon mootness).
7. Plaintiffs Count IV is DISMISSED without prejudice (on mootness and standing grounds).
8. The remainder of Plaintiff s claims for damages are DISMISSED on the merits.
9. The Clerk is directed to CLOSE this case.
10. Any pending motions are DENIED as moot.
DONE AND ORDERED in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida, this 15th day of September, 2021.