MURRAY
v.
GOVERNOR, STATE OF FLORIDA
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court adopted the magistrate judge's recommendation, granting the motion to dismiss in part for lack of standing and Eleventh Amendment immunity, and denying the remainder.
Plaintiff filed a complaint against state officials. Defendants moved to dismiss, and a magistrate judge recommended granting the motion in part due t…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Report And Recommendation cases and more on FLexlaw
THIS CAUSE is before the Court on Defendants' Motion to Dismiss ("Motion to Dismiss," Doc. 29), to which Plaintiff submitted a Response (Doc. 30). The United States Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R," Doc. 37), recommending that the Motion be granted in part to the extent that the Complaint (Doc. 1) be dismissed for lack of standing and Eleventh Amendment immunity, (Doc. 37 at 12). Plaintiff filed Objections (Doc. 38). Also pending is Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 32), to which Defendants filed a Response (Doc. 35), and Defendants' Motion for Protective Order (Doc. 33), to which Plaintiff filed a Response (Doc. 34). As set forth below, Plaintiff's Objections
will be overruled, the Motion to Dismiss will be granted in part and denied in part, the remaining Motions will be denied as moot, and the Complaint will be dismissed.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), when a party makes a timely objection, the Court shall review de novo any portions of a magistrate judge's R&R concerning specific proposed findings or recommendations to which an objection is made. See also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). De novo review “require[s] independent consideration of factual issues based on the record." Jeffrey S. v. State Bd. of Educ. of Ga., 896 F. 2d 507, 513 (11th Cir. 1990) (per curiam). The district court "may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
Plaintiff's Objections prove as inscrutable as his Complaint. Rather than objecting to specific portions of the Magistrate Judge's reasoning in the R&R, the Court is instead treated primarily to Plaintiff's stream of consciousness on the ills of the justice system in this country. Apart from generally disagreeing with the outcome of the R&R, Plaintiff makes no argument supported by legal authority that the Magistrate Judge actually erred. See U.S. Steel Corp. v. Astrue, 495 F. 3d 1272, 1287 n.13 (11th Cir. 2007) (refusing to address a "perfunctory and underdeveloped argument" with no citation to legal authority and collecting cases).
After review in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72, and considering the Objections, the Magistrate Judge's
recommended disposition is accepted. Accordingly, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED as follows:
1. The Report and Recommendation (Doc. 37) is ADOPTED and made a part of this Order. a. Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 29) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. b. The Complaint (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED for lack of standing and due to Eleventh Amendment immunity. c. The remainder of the Motion to Dismiss is DENIED. 2. Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 32) is DENIED as moot. 3. Defendants' Motion for Protective Order (Doc. 33) is DENIED as moot.
4. The Clerk is directed to close this case.
DONE and ORDERED in Orlando, Florida on April 25, 2025.
CARLOS E. MENDOZA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Copies furnished to: Counsel of Record Unrepresented Party