Opinion
21-14156-CIV-CANNON/McCabe
09-23-2022
JANINE A. ALEXANDER, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF STUART, et al., Defendants.
ORDER ACCEPTING IN PART AND REJECTING IN PART MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
AILEEN M. CANNON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon Defendants' Combined Motion to Dismiss the First Amended Complaint (the “Motion”) [ECF No. 74], filed on October 27, 2021. The Motion was referred to Magistrate Judge Ryon M. McCabe for a report and recommendation [ECF No. 89]. On July 15, 2022, Judge McCabe issued a report, recommending that the Motion be granted, and that some of the claims be dismissed with prejudice and that some of the claims be dismissed without prejudice (the “Report”) [ECF No. 91]. The Court has reviewed the Report [ECF No. 91], Plaintiff's Objections [ECF No. 94], Defendants' Joint Response to the Objections [ECF No. 97], and the full record. For the reasons set forth below, the Report [ECF No. 91] is ACCEPTED IN PART AND REJECTED IN PART.
RELEVANT BACKGROUND
Plaintiff filed her initial complaint against Defendants on April 5, 2021, alleging that Defendants committed numerous violations of her constitutional rights under federal and Florida state law [ECF No. 1]. On July 13, 2021, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss [ECF No. 43], which the Court referred to Judge Shaniek Maynard for a report and recommendation [ECF No. 54]. On September 9, 2021, Judge Maynard entered a report and recommendation outlining the applicable law, summarizing the underlying facts, and recommending that the motion to dismiss be granted in part and denied in part and that the Complaint be dismissed without prejudice [ECF No. 56]. The Court adopted Judge Maynard's report on September 28, 2021 [ECF No. 59]. In doing so, the Court noted that it would “not grant Plaintiff further opportunities to amend her Complaint absent the requisite showing under the law” [ECF No. 59 p. 2].
Plaintiff filed the First Amended Complaint [ECF No. 61] on October 12, 2021. Defendants subsequently filed the instant Joint Motion to Dismiss [ECF No. 74]. The Motion was referred to Judge McCabe for a Report and Recommendation on June 6, 2022 [ECF No. 89]. On July 15, 2022, Judge McCabe entered his comprehensive Report [ECF No. 91], recommending that the instant Motion to Dismiss be granted and that some of Plaintiff's claims be dismissed with prejudice and others be dismissed without prejudice [ECF No. 91]. Plaintiff filed her Objections on September 8, 2022 [ECF No. 94]. Defendants subsequently filed a Joint Response expressing agreement with Judge McCabe's recommendation [ECF No. 97 (characterizing Plaintiff's Objection as a “rambling” and “confused” narrative “that cannot be followed and/or understood”)]. The Report is ripe for adjudication.
LEGAL STANDARD
To challenge the findings and recommendations of a magistrate judge, a party must file specific written objections identifying the portions of the proposed findings and recommendation to which objection is made. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(3); Heath v. Jones, 863 F.2d 815, 822 (11th Cir. 1989); Macort v. Prem, Inc., 208 Fed.Appx. 781, 784 (11th Cir. 2006). A district court reviews de novo those portions of the report to which objection is made and 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). To the extent a party fails to object to parts of the magistrate judge's report, the Court may accept the recommendation so long as there is no clear error on the face of the record. Macort, 208 Fed.Appx. at 784. Legal conclusions are reviewed de novo, even in the absence of an objection. See LeCroy v. McNeil, 397 Fed.Appx. 554, 556 (11th Cir. 2010); Cooper-Houston v. S. Ry. Co., 37 F.3d 603, 604 (11th Cir. 1994).
DISCUSSION
Plaintiff's “Objection(s)” to Judge McCabe's Report, presented in a 130-page filing containing what appears to be an embedded proposed amended complaint, consists of an additional lengthy recitation of the facts from the First Amended Complaint [ECF No. 94 pp. 2-4]. To the extent Plaintiff attempts to present substantive arguments to challenge Judge McCabe's findings in the Report [ECF No. 94 pp. 4-40], those arguments mirror in substance the arguments raised in the First Amended Complaint [ECF No. 61], which Judge McCabe soundly rejected in the Report [ECF No 91]. Overall, the Court finds the Report to be comprehensive and well-reasoned and accepts its legal analysis.
The Court rejects the Report, however, to the extent it recommends that some of Plaintiff's claims be dismissed without prejudice as to certain Defendants [see ECF No. 91 pp. 35-36]. The Court's Order Adopting Judge Maynard's earlier Report and Recommendations noted that Plaintiff would not be granted “further opportunities to amend her Complaint absent the requisite showing under the law” [ECF No. 59 p. 2]. At this juncture, in light of the deficiencies identified in Judge McCabe's Report [ECF No. 91], Plaintiff's unpersuasive Objections [ECF No. 94], and Plaintiff's previous opportunity to amend her complaint following Judge Maynard's Report [ECF No. 59], it is clear that amendment would be futile. See Bryant v. Dupree, 252 F.3d 1161, 1163 (11th Cir. 2001) (recognizing that courts need not allow amendment where it would be futile). This is confirmed by what appears to be Plaintiff's proposed Second Amended Complaint, which is embedded within the Objections and does not cure any of the deficiencies identified in the Report [ECF No. 94 pp. 43-129].
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
1. The Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 91] is ACCEPTED IN PART AND REJECTED IN PART.
a. Defendants' Combined Motion to Dismiss the First Amended Complaint [ECF No. 74] is GRANTED.
b. The First Amended Complaint [ECF No. 61] is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
2. Final judgment will be entered separately pursuant to Rule 58 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 58.
DONE AND ORDERED