Opinion
Case No. 3:15-cv-693-J-34JBT
02-07-2017
RENZER BELL, Plaintiff, v. CHERI JOHNSON, et al., Defendants.
Copies to: Counsel of Record Pro Se Parties
ORDER
THIS CAUSE is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 42; Report), entered by the Honorable Joel B. Toomey, United States Magistrate Judge, on September 14, 2016. In the Report, Magistrate Judge Toomey recommends that 1.) Defendant Martin's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, or in the Alternative, Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. No. 23) be granted, and the claims against Defendant Martin be dismissed with prejudice; 2.) Plaintiff's Motion to Amend (Dkt. No. 39) be denied; and 3.) Plaintiff be directed to show cause why the remaining claims should not be dismissed with prejudice. See Report at 2, 16. Despite being granted three lengthy extensions of time to file objections and being advised that no further extensions would be granted, see Orders (Dkt. Nos. 47, 51, 55), Plaintiff has failed to file objections to the Report.
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). 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 Report, 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 (Dkt. No. 42) is ADOPTED as the opinion of the Court.
2. Defendant Martin's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, or in the Alternative, Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. No. 23) is GRANTED, and the claims raised against Defendant Martin in the Complaint are DISMISSED with prejudice.
3. Plaintiff's Motion to Amend (Dkt. No. 39) is DENIED.
4. Plaintiff shall show cause by a written response filed no later than February 27, 2017, why the claims against the remaining Defendants should not be dismissed with prejudice for the reasons set forth in the Report.
DONE AND ORDERED in Jacksonville, Florida, this 7th day of February, 2017.
/s/_________
MARCIA MORALES HOWARD
United States District Judge ja Copies to: Counsel of Record Pro Se Parties