HARRIS
v.
MIAMI-DADE COUNTY
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 granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment on the remaining counts.
Plaintiff sued Detective Andrew Garcia. The magistrate judge issued a report recommending summary judgment for the defendant. Plaintiff filed objectio…
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 Clear Error Review cases and more on FLexlaw
THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on Defendant Detective Andrew Garcia's Motion for Summary Judgment (the “Motion”). [ECF No. 146]. The action was referred to Magistrate Judge Lauren F. Louis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), for a ruling on all pretrial, nondispositive matters, and for a Report and Recommendation on any dispositive matters. [ECF No. 154].
On June 7, 2024, Judge Louis issued her report recommending that the Motion be granted (the "Report"). [ECF No. 155]. On June 21, 2024, Plaintiff timely filed objections to the Report, [ECF No. 156], to which Defendant subsequently responded, [ECF No. 157]. [fn 1]
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).
In her Report, Judge Louis recommends that the Court grant Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment as to Plaintiff's remaining counts, Counts II and III. [fn 2] Upon de novo review, the Court agrees with Judge Louis's well-reasoned analysis and conclusion that Defendant is entitled to summary judgment as to Counts II and III.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, after careful consideration, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
(1) Judge Louis's Report and Recommendation, [ECF No. 155], is ADOPTED in full.
(2) Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, [ECF No. 146] is GRANTED.
(3) The Court will enter a separate judgment.
(4) Any pending motions are DENIED as moot.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this 24th day of July, 2024.
DARRIN P. GAYLES
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
[fn 1]: Defendant correctly points out that Plaintiffs objections at times appear to copy and paste entire sections from the Report, including portions of the Report that directly contradict the arguments counsel attempts to raise in his brief. The Court warns against this practice and urges counsel to use more care in subsequent submissions filed on behalf of his client.
[fn 2]: On August 10, 2022, the Court granted the Motion to Dismiss Counts I and IV of the Fourth Amended Complaint, filed by Defendants Miami-Dade County and Jesus Coto. [ECF No. 117].
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)