Opinion
Case No.: 8:18-cv-1775-EAK-JSS
07-30-2019
BENEDICT MOHIT, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF HAINES CITY, Defendant.
ORDER
Currently before the undersigned is the Report and Recommendation ("R&R") of United States Magistrate Judge Julie S. Sneed. (Doc. 40). By the thorough and well-reasoned R&R, Judge Sneed recommends that Defendant City of Haines City's ("Haines City") motion to dismiss, (Doc. 26), Plaintiff Benedict Mohit's amended complaint, (Doc. 23), be granted in part and denied in part, (Doc. 40). Specifically, Judge Sneed recommends that Haines City's motion to dismiss be denied as to Count I of Mohit's amended complaint, but that it be granted as to Counts II and III of Mohit's amended complaint, to the extent that those counts be dismissed without prejudice to Mohit's right to file a second amended complaint. Neither Mohit nor Haines City filed written objections to the R&R, and the time for doing so has elapsed.
Under the Federal Magistrates Act ("Act"), Congress vested Article III judges with the power to "designate a magistrate judge to hear and determine any pretrial matter pending before the court," subject to various exceptions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). The Act further vests magistrate judges with authority to submit proposed findings of fact and recommendations for disposition by an Article III judge. Id. § 636(b)(1)(B). "Within fourteen days after being served with a copy [of a magistrate judge's report and recommendation], any party may serve and file written objections to [the magistrate judge's] proposed findings and recommendations." Id. § 636(b)(1). On review, the district judge "shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report . . . to which objection is made." Id. When no timely and specific objections are filed, caselaw indicates the district judge should review the magistrate judge's proposed findings and recommendations using a clearly erroneous standard. See Gropp v. United Airlines, Inc., 817 F. Supp. 1558, 1562 (M.D. Fla. 1993).
After careful consideration of the R&R, in conjunction with an independent examination of the file, the undersigned finds that the R&R is well-reasoned, correct, and not clearly erroneous.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED as follows:
1. Judge Sneed's R&R, (Doc. 40), is AFFIRMED and ADOPTED and INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE into this Order for all purposes, including appellate review.
2. Haines City's motion to dismiss, (Doc. 26), is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.
a. The motion is DENIED as to Count I of Mohit's amended complaint, and that Count survives.
b. The motion is GRANTED as to Counts II and III of Mohit's amended complaint, and those Counts are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to Mohit's right to file a second amended complaint.
3. Mohit shall file any second amended complaint by August 30 , 2019 .
4. Haines City shall answer or otherwise respond to any second amended complaint by October 1 , 2019 .
ORDERED in Chambers, in Tampa, Florida, this 30th day of JULY, 2019.
/s/_________
ELIZABETH A. KOVACHEVICH
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Copies furnished to: Counsel/Parties of Record
Should Mohit have questions or concerns regarding the Court's instructions, he is encouraged to make use of the resources available to pro se litigants in this District. The Tampa Bay Chapter of the Federal Bar Association operates a Legal Information Program on Tuesdays from 1:00 p.m. to 2:30 p.m. at the Sam M. Gibbons United States Courthouse, 801 North Florida Ave, Tampa, FL 33602. Through that program, pro se litigants may consult with a lawyer on a limited basis, free of charge. More information about the program is available on the Court's website at http://www.flmd.uscourts. gov/legal-information-program. Additionally, librarians, lawyers, and judges from around the Middle District created a helpful guide to assist pro se litigants proceeding in federal court. That guide can be found by following this link: http://www.flmd.uscourts.gov/sites/flmd/files/documents/mdfl-guide-for-proceeding-without-a-lawyer.pdf. --------