Opinion
Case No: 8:09-CV-916-T-30AEP, 8:09-CV-1544-T-30AEP, 8:09-CV-2265-T-30AEP.
September 6, 2011
ORDER
THIS CAUSE came on for consideration upon the following:
1. Report and Recommendation (Dkt. #51), Plaintiff's Objections (Dkt. #52), and Defendant's Memorandum in opposition to Plaintiff's Objections (Dkt. #53) in case number 8:09-cv-916-T-30AEP;
2. Report and Recommendation (Dkt. #43), Plaintiff's Objections (Dkt. #44), and Defendant's Memorandum in opposition to Plaintiff's Objections (#45) in case number 8:09-cv-1544-T-30AEP; and
3. Report and Recommendation (Dkt. #33), Plaintiff's Objections (Dkt. #34), and Defendant's Memorandum in opposition to Plaintiff's Objections (Dkt. #35) in case number 8:09-cv-2265-T-30AEP.
After careful consideration of the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (which is binding in all three cases), Plaintiff's Objections, and Defendant's Memorandum in opposition to Plaintiff's Objections, and in conjunction with an independent examination of the file, the Court concludes that the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation should be adopted, confirmed, and approved in all respects.
Plaintiff's Objections to the Report and Recommendation largely consist of the same arguments Plaintiff asserted in favor of its Motions for Partial Summary Judgment. And these arguments were addressed by the Magistrate Judge in his detailed and well-reasoned Report and Recommendation. The Court concludes that Plaintiff has failed to carry its burden of demonstrating that the Magistrate Judge erred in issuing his Report and Recommendation. The Magistrate Judge correctly concluded that NMFS has both "completed" and "implemented" a program to improve the quality and accuracy of information generated by the MRFSS in compliance with the MSRA, 16 U.S.C. § 1881(g)(3)(A), (D).
ACCORDINGLY, it is therefore, ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that:
1. The Magistrate Judge's Reports and Recommendations (Dkts. #51, #43, #33) issued in the instant cases are adopted, confirmed, and approved in all respects, and are made a part of this Order for all purposes, including appellate review.
2. In case number 8:09-cv-916-T-30AEP, Defendant's Combined Cross-Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Dkt. #37) is GRANTED and Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Dkt. #33) is DENIED.
3. In case number 8:09-cv-1544-T-30AEP, Defendant's Combined Cross-Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Dkt. #38) is GRANTED and Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Dkt. #34) is DENIED.
4. In case number 8:09-cv-2265-T-30AEP, Defendant's Combined Cross-Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Dkt. #28) is GRANTED and Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Dkt. #24) is DENIED.
5. The CLERK is directed to enter Partial Summary Judgment in favor of Defendant National Marine Fisheries Service and against Plaintiff Fishing Rights Alliance, Inc. in: Case Numbers 8:09-cv-916-T-30AEP; 8:09-cv-1544-T-30AEP; and 8:09-cv-2265-T-30AEP.
6. The Magistrate Judge should conduct a status conference with the parties to discuss whether there are any remaining issues to be addressed by the Court in these cases.
DONE and ORDERED in Tampa, Florida.