COAKLEY
v.
CITY OF HOLLYWOOD
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.
In Coakley v. City of Hollywood, the district court reviewed and adopted a magistrate judge's recommendation to deny the plaintiff's multiple motions to reopen the case, compel payment, and compel discovery, finding the court lacked jurisdiction over the matters.
The court adopted the magistrate judge's recommendation in full and denied all of the plaintiff's motions for lack of jurisdiction. The court determined it lacked jurisdiction to grant the relief sought.
“A district court may accept, reject, or modify a magistrate judge's report and recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).”
Establishes the standard of review for magistrate judge recommendations
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe plaintiff filed multiple motions seeking to reopen a case, order the City of Hollywood to pay, accept payment offered at mediation, and compel dis…
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 Motion To Reopen cases and more on FLexlaw
THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on the Plaintiff's Motion to Reopen Case, Motion to Order the City of Hollywood to Pay, [ECF No. 178]; (2) Motion to Reopen Case, [ECF No. 180]; and (3) Motion to Accept Payment in Full Offered at Mediation in Videos, [ECF No. 181] (collectively, the “Motions”). The Motions were referred to Magistrate Judge Strauss pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). [ECF No. 183]. On October 4, 2024, Judge Strauss issued his report recommending that the Motions as well as Plaintiff's subsequently filed Motion to Compel, [ECF No. 184], be denied (the “Report”). [ECF No. 185]. Plaintiff timely objected to the Report. [ECF No. 187].
A district court may accept, reject, or modify a magistrate judge's report and recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Those portions of the report and recommendation to which objection is made are accorded de novo review, if those objections “pinpoint the specific findings that the party disagrees with.” United States v. Schultz, 565 F. 3d 1353, 1360 (11th Cir. 2009); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). Any portions of the report and recommendation to which no specific objection is made are reviewed only for clear error. Liberty Am. Ins. Grp., Inc. v. WestPoint
Underwriters, L.L.C., 199 F. Supp. 2d 1271, 1276 (M.D. Fla. 2001); accord Macort v. Prem, Inc., 208 F. App'x 781, 784 (11th Cir. 2006).
Upon de novo review, the Court agrees with Judge Strauss' well-reasoned analysis and conclusion that Defendant's Motions and his Motion to Compel, [ECF No. 184], be denied for lack of jurisdiction. Plaintiff's second Motion to Compel, [ECF No. 186], is also denied for that same reason.
CONCLUSION
After careful consideration, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
(1) Magistrate Judge Strauss' Report and Recommendation, [ECF No. 185], is ADOPTED in full;
(2) Plaintiff's Motion to Reopen Case, Motion to Order the City of Hollywood to Pay [ECF No. 178]; (2) Motion to Reopen Case [ECF No. 180]; (3) Motion to Accept Payment in Full Offered at Mediation in Videos [ECF No. 181]; (4) Motion to Compel [ECF No. 184]; and (5) Motion to Compel [ECF No. 186] are DENIED.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this 21st day of November, 2024.
DARRIN P. GAYLES
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- United States v. Schultz, 565 F.3d 1353 (11th Cir. 2009)
- Liberty Am. Ins. Grp., Inc. v. Westpoint Underwriters, L.L.C., 2001 WL 1850837 (M.D. Fla. 2001)