BOUDREAU

v.

NOCCO

This matter is before the Court on consideration of United States Magistrate Judge Anthony E. Porcelli’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. # 72), filed on November 2, 2022, recommending that Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Doc. # 37) be denied, Defendant’s Motion for Final Summary Judgment (Doc. # 39) be granted, judgment be entered in Defendant’s favor, and the case be closed. Plaintiffs filed an objection, arguing that the Report and Recommendation erred insofar as it found “the requested modification unnecessary, not reasonable, and not entitled to injunctive relief.” (Doc. # 73 at 3). Defendant did not respond to the objection. Upon review, the Court adopts the Report and Recommendation in full and overrules the objection. Discussion After conducting a careful and complete review of the findings and recommendations, a district judge may accept, reject or modify the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Williams v. Wainwright, 681 F. 2d 732 (11th Cir. 1982). If a party files a timely and specific objection to a finding of fact by the magistrate judge, the district court must conduct a de novo review with respect to that factual issue. Stokes v. Singletary, 952 F. 2d 1567, 1576 (11th Cir. 1992). The district judge reviews legal conclusions de novo, even in the absence of an objection. See Cooper-Houston v. S. Ry. Co., 37 F. 3d 603, 604 (11th Cir. 1994); Castro Bobadilla v. Reno, 826 F. Supp. 1428, 1431-32 (S.D. Fla. 1993), aff’d, 28 F. 3d 116 (11th Cir. 1994). After conducting a careful and complete review of the findings, conclusions, and recommendations, and giving de novo review to matters of law and fact, the Court accepts the factual findings and legal conclusion of Judge Porcelli and overrules Plaintiffs’ objection. The Report and Recommendation is correct that there is no genuine dispute of material fact as to whether Plaintiffs were “excluded from” or “denied the benefits of the services, programs, or activities of a public entity” or were otherwise discriminated against on the basis of disability. Shotz v. Cates, 256 F. 3d 1077, 1079 (11th Cir. 2001) (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 12132). The Court agrees with Judge Porcelli that the desired accommodation allowing Plaintiffs to use a golf cart on sidewalks despite state law is not necessary for Plaintiffs to have meaningful access to the sidewalks and to avoid discrimination based on disability. (Doc. # 72 at 11); see 28 C.F.R. § 35.130(b)(7) (“A public entity shall make reasonable modifications in policies, practices, or procedures when the modifications are necessary to avoid discrimination on the basis of disability, unless the public entity can demonstrate that making the modifications would fundamentally alter the nature of the service, program, or activity.” (emphasis added)). While this is a fact-specific inquiry, there is no genuine dispute here. In so holding, the Court is mindful that “the ADA entitles disabled persons to ‘reasonable accommodations, not to optimal ones finely tuned to [their] preferences.’” Medina v. City of Cape Coral, 72 F. Supp. 3d 1274, 1279 (M.D. Fla. 2014) (quoting Nunes v. Mass. Dep’t of Corr., 766 F. 3d 136, 146 (1st Cir. 2014)). “In other words, meaningful access . . . does not mean equal access or preferential treatment.” Id. (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)). As Judge Porcelli noted, Plaintiffs already own one motorized scooter that they may lawfully use — and Mrs. Boudreau does use — on the sidewalks.¹ There are also many other modes of public transportation available to them to travel through Pasco County, including the bus and the County’s para-transit system. See A.M. ex rel. J.M. v. NYC Dep’t of Educ., 840 F. Supp. 2d 660, 680 (E.D.N.Y. 2012) (“[W]here alternative reasonable accommodations to allow for ‘meaningful access’ are offered or already in place, a [] reasonable accommodations claim must fail.”), aff’d sub

Eigen Maca ee VIRGINIA M. HERNANDEZ*COVINGTON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE