Opinion
4:21-cv-10009-JEM/Becerra
02-16-2022
TIM RANDOLPH DANIELS, Plaintiff, v. ERIC SUTTON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE FLORIDA FISH AND WILDLIFE CONSERVATION COMMISSION, in his official capacity, Defendant.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
JACQUELINE BECERRA United States Magistrate Judge.
THIS CAUSE came before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion For Summary Judgment, ECF No. [20]. The undersigned conducted a telephonic status conference (the “Status Conference”) with the Parties on April 13, 2021 to discuss the schedule for this case in light of Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. [37], and Plaintiff's Motion For Summary Judgment, ECF No. [20]. During the Status Conference, the Parties agreed to a schedule whereby Defendants' Motion to Dismiss would be resolved prior to resolution of Plaintiff's Motion For Summary Judgment. The Court subsequently entered an Omnibus Order granting Defendants' Amended Motion to Dismiss. ECF No. [56] at 2. Plaintiff thereafter filed an Amended Complaint. ECF No. [54]. Thus, Plaintiffs Motion For Summary Judgment was filed seeking summary judgment on a complaint that has since been dismissed.
Plaintiff's Motion and first Complaint named Florida Keys Commercial Fisherman's Association, LLC (“FKCFA”) as a plaintiff. The undersigned recommended dismissal as to FKCFA for lack of standing, as FKCFA does not exist, and the District Court affirmed and adopted the Report and Recommendation in its entirety. See ECF Nos. [53] at 8; [56] at 2. Moreover, following amended briefing, the Court entered an order recognizing Tim Randolph Daniels as the sole Plaintiff in this action. ECF Nos. [86], [92].
Accordingly, upon due consideration of the Motion and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that Plaintiffs Motion For Summary Judgment, ECF No. [20], be DENIED AS MOOT.
A party shall serve and file written objections, if any, to this Report and Recommendation with the United States District Judge for the Southern District of Florida, within FOURTEEN (14) DAYS of being served with a copy of this Report and Recommendation. Failure to timely file objections will bar a de novo determination by the District Judge of anything in this Recommendation and shall constitute a waiver of a party's “right to challenge on appeal the district court's order based on unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions.” 11th Cir. R. 3-1 (2016); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); see also Harrigan v. Metro-Dade Police Dep't Station #4, 977 F.3d 1185, 1191-92 (11th Cir. 2020).
DONE AND SUBMITTED.