From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Bowden v. Stokely

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JACKSONVILLE DIVISION
Aug 22, 2013
Case No.3:12-cv-652-J-99MMH-JRK (M.D. Fla. Aug. 22, 2013)

Opinion

Case No.3:12-cv-652-J-99MMH-JRK

08-22-2013

CHRISTOPHER BOWDEN, Plaintiff, v. ROBERT STOKELY, et. al., Defendants.


ORDER

THIS CAUSE is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 32; Report), entered by the Honorable James R. Klindt, United States Magistrate Judge, on July 2, 2013. In the Report, Magistrate Judge Klindt recommends that Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 26) be granted, in part, and denied, in part. See Report at 33. On July 17, 2013, Defendants filed objections to the Report. See Defendants' Objection to the Report and Recommendation Regarding Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 33; Objections); Defendants' Motion for Leave to Amend the Objection to the Report and Recommendation, or in the Alternative Notice of Supplemental Authority (Doc. No. 34; Motion for Leave). Thus, this matter is ripe for review.

The Court will grant the Motion for Leave and consider the arguments therein in determining whether to accept or reject 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 fact 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 the legal conclusions in the report de novo. See Cooper-Houston v. S. 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); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

Upon independent review of the file and for the reasons stated in the Magistrate Judge's Report, the Court determines that Defendants' Objections to the Magistrate Judge's findings are due to be overruled, and the Report and Recommendation is due to be adopted as the opinion of the Court. Accordingly, it is hereby

ORDERED:

1. Defendants' Motion for Leave to Amend the Objection to the Report and Recommendation, or in the Alternative Notice of Supplemental Authority (Doc. No. 34) is GRANTED.

2. Defendants' Objections to the Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 33) are OVERRULED.

3. The Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 32) is ADOPTED as the opinion of the Court.

4. Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 26) is GRANTED, in part, and DENIED, in part, as follows:

a. Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED to the extent that all claims against Defendant Norris are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
b. Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment as to Defendants Stokley and Hall is DENIED.

DONE AND ORDERED at Jacksonville, Florida, this 22nd day of August, 2013.

________________________

MARCIA MORALES HOWARD

United States District Judge
i21 Copies to: Honorable James R. Klindt
United States Magistrate Judge
Counsel of Record
Pro Se Plaintiff


Summaries of

Bowden v. Stokely

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JACKSONVILLE DIVISION
Aug 22, 2013
Case No.3:12-cv-652-J-99MMH-JRK (M.D. Fla. Aug. 22, 2013)
Case details for

Bowden v. Stokely

Case Details

Full title:CHRISTOPHER BOWDEN, Plaintiff, v. ROBERT STOKELY, et. al., Defendants.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JACKSONVILLE DIVISION

Date published: Aug 22, 2013

Citations

Case No.3:12-cv-652-J-99MMH-JRK (M.D. Fla. Aug. 22, 2013)

Citing Cases

Flanning v. Baker

Plaintiff's description of his injuries and symptoms is not so blatantly contradicted by the record that the…