Opinion
Civil No. 08-1039 (GAG) (JA).
June 9, 2009
ORDER
Pending before the Court is defendants' motion for summary judgment (Docket Nos. 66, 114), which was referred to Magistrate Judge Bruce J. McGiverin on January 7, 2009 for a report and recommendation (Docket No. 110). On May 19, 2009, plaintiffs made timely objections (Docket No. 160) to the magistrate judge's report and recommendation (Docket No. 159).
"Pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 636(b)(1)(B), Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b), and Local Rule 503, a District Court may refer dispositive motions to a United States Magistrate Judge for a Report and Recommendation." United States v. Armstrong, 2009 WL 1292620, 2 (D. Puerto Rico) (citing Alamo Rodriguez v. Pfizer Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 286 F. Supp. 2d 144, 146 (D.P.R. 2003)). Upon receiving timely objections, the District Judge will make a de novo determination regarding the objected portions of the report and recommendation. Id. (citingRivera-De-Leon v. Maxon Eng'g Servs., 283 F. Supp. 2d 550, 555 (D.P.R. 2003)). Thereafter, the Court may "accept, reject or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate. Id. (citing Alamo Rodriguez, 286 F. Supp. 2d at 146; Templeman v. Chris Craft Corp., 770 F.2d 245, 247 (1st Cir. 1985)).
Judge McGiverin's report and recommendation (Docket No. 159) notes that plaintiffs' claims are unripe for the following reasons: (1) plaintiffs failed to exhaust all available state remedies, such as inverse condemnation; (2) the state is not in a position to provide for meaningful pre-deprivation remedies regarding defendants' conduct at issue; and (3) plaintiffs have not exercised any post-deprivation remedy.
In response to Judge McGiverin's report and recommendation (Docket No. 159), plaintiffs filed timely objections (Docket No. 160), arguing: (1) that plaintiffs' Takings Claim is ripe since there is no identifiable process aimed at providing compensation; (2) that there is a genuine factual issue as to defendants' conduct preventing dismissal of plaintiffs' claims; and (3) that equity and fairness go against dismissal of plaintiffs' claims.
After conducting a de novo review, the Court finds that plaintiffs' objections are without merit, and ADOPTS in its entirety Magistrate Judge McGiverin's comprehensive and extremely well-reasoned report and recommendation (Docket No. 159).
Accordingly, the Court GRANTS defendants' motion for summary judgment as to the federal claims. (Docket Nos. 66, 114). The supplemental state-law claims are dismissed without prejudice.
SO ORDERED.