SMITH
v.
KNIPE
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 report and recommendation, granting defendants' motions to dismiss in part and denying them in part without prejudice.
Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, brought an action for copyright infringement. Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint. A magistrate judge issued a rep…
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 Objections To Report And Recommendation cases and more on FLexlaw
Plaintiff John D. Smith, proceeding pro se, brought this action seeking damages for copyright infringement and a preliminary injunction. (Complaint, Dkt. 46.) Each Defendant moved to dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint. (Dkts. 21, 22, 23, 43.) On February 13, 2024, United States Magistrate Judge Leslie Hoffman Price entered a report and recommendation recommending that Defendants' motions to dismiss be granted in part and denied in part without prejudice. (Dkt. 48.) No party has objected, and the time to do so has expired. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
After conducting a careful and complete review of the findings and recommendations, a district judge "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); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72. With respect to non-dispositive matters, the district judge "must consider timely objections and modify or set aside any part of the order that is clearly erroneous or is contrary to law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a); see Jordan v. Comm'r, Miss. Dep't of Corr., 947 F. 3d 1322, 1327 (11th Cir. 2020). For dispositive matters, the district judge must conduct a de novo review of any portion of the report and recommendation to which a timely objection is made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); United States v. Farias-Gonzalez, 556 F. 3d 1181, 1184 n.1 (11th Cir. 2009) (“A district court makes a de novo determination of those portions of a magistrate's report to which objections are filed."). Even in the absence of a specific objection, the district judge reviews any legal conclusions de novo. See Cooper-Houston v. S. Ry. Co., 37 F. 3d 603, 604 (11th Cir. 1994); Ashworth v. Glades Cnty. Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs, 379 F. Supp. 3d 1244, 1246 (M.D. Fla. 2019).
Upon conducting a careful and complete review of Judge Hoffman Price's findings, conclusions, and recommendations, and giving de novo review to matters of law, the court adopts the report and recommendation in full.
Accordingly:
1. Judge Hoffman Price's Report and Recommendation (Dkt. 48) is АССЕРТED and ADOPTED.
2. Defendants' Motions to Dismiss (Dkts. 21, 22, 23, 43) are GRANTED in part and DENIED without prejudice in part.
3. Plaintiff's Complaint (Dkt. 46) is DISMISSED without prejudice as a shotgun pleading. Plaintiff shall file an amended complaint, if any,
within 30 days of this order. Plaintiff shall ensure that such amended complaint does not contain Judge Shenko's personal home address (which includes the city, state and zip code).
4. Defendants' Motions to Dismiss (Dkts. 21, 22, 23, 43) are otherwise denied.
ORDERED in Orlando, Florida, on April 15, 2024.
JULIE S. SNEED
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Copies furnished to: Counsel of Record Unrepresented Party
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Marina Cooper-Houston v. S. Ry. Co., 37 F.3d 603 (11th Cir. 1994)
- Jordan v. Ga. Dep't of Corr., 947 F.3d 1322 (11th Cir. 2020)
- In re Mad Toyz III, LLC (M.D. Fla. 2026)
- United States v. Farias-Gonzalez, 556 F.3d 1181 (11th Cir. 2009)