Opinion
1:21-cv-22360-JLK
02-07-2022
REYNOLD FRANCOIS, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, and JOHN DOES, Defendants.
ORDER DENYING OBJECTIONS TO REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
JAMES LAWRENCE KING, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
THIS MATTER is before the Court on Plaintiff's Objections, filed on January 3, 2022, (DE 45) to Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Becerra's Report and Recommendation, (“R&R”) entered December 29, 2021 (DE 43). Magistrate Judge Becerra recommends granting in part and denying in part Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Third Amended Complaint (DE 38, 39). R&R at 2. Specifically, the R&R recommends that leave should be granted only to substitute Korey Jake Dang as the Defendant previously identified as John Doe and to remove language potentially naming a prosecutor as an individual defendant. Id. The R&R further recommends denying the Motion for Leave to include reference to photographs in the Government's possession and to add a footnote stating that evidence in support of Plaintiff's case may be obtained through discovery. Id.
Plaintiff objects to Judge Becerra's R&R because Plaintiff's attorney did not have the opportunity to review discovery from the Defendant prior to the filing of the Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) and therefore the proposed amendments at issue here were not included. See Obj. at 2. Plaintiff argues that his Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint (DE 26) was filed on November 11, 2021 and a corrected version filed on November 12, 2021 (DE 28), both with the proposed SAC attached. The Court granted the Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint (DE 34) on December 3, 2021 and the SAC (DE 35) was filed on December 6, 2021. Plaintiff further argues that the Government's discovery responses were served on November 18 and November 22, 2021, more than six days after Plaintiff filed his SAC. As such, Plaintiff's counsel could not have reviewed the discovery in time to change his SAC.
Taking into consideration Plaintiff's objections, the Court reviews the R&R de novo. 28 U.S.C § 636(b)(1). A de novo review requires that the district judge "give fresh consideration to those issues to which specific objection has been made by a party." Jeffrey S. v. State Bd. of Educ. of Ga., 896 F.2d 507, 512 (11th Cir. 1990) (quoting H.R. 1609, 94th Cong., § 2 (1976)). The district judge reviews legal conclusions de novo, even in the absence of an objection. See Cooper-Houston v. Southern Ry. Co., 37 F.3d 603, 604 (11th Cir. 1994).
The Court agrees with Magistrate Judge Becerra's finding that the Motion for Leave should be granted only to substitute Korey Jake Dang as the Defendant previously identified as John Doe and to remove language potentially naming a prosecutor as an individual defendant. R&R at 2. Although Plaintiff's timeline is correct regarding when the SAC was filed and when discovery was served, this Court finds that the remaining amendments Plaintiff seeks to add would be substantively unnecessary. Plaintiff's proposed amendments do not allege any new facts, but instead seek to reference evidence obtained during discovery. At this point, including references to this evidence is futile. Thus, the Court, after carefully considering Plaintiff's objections, finds that Plaintiff has not identified any deficiency in the Magistrate Judge's order, nor do the objections materially impact the Court's conclusion that the Report and Recommendation (DE 43) should be affirmed.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that:
1. Plaintiff's Objections to Magistrate Judge Becerra's Report and Recommendation (DE 45) are hereby DENIED;
2. Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Becerra's December 29, 2021 Report and Recommendation (DE 43) be, and the same is, hereby AFFIRMED and ADOPTED as an Order of this Court; and
3. Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Third Amended Complaint is hereby GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. Defendant shall respond to the Third Amended Complaint within thirty (30) days.
DONE AND ORDERED.
Jacqueline Becerra, Magistrate Judge