MIKOV
v.
VILLAGE OF PALM SPRINGS
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 District Court adopted a Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, denying the Village of Palm Springs' Motion to Dismiss without prejudice and staying the case pending resolution of a related appeal in the Eleventh Circuit. The court found no clear error in the magistrate judge's analysis.
The Motion to Dismiss is denied without prejudice, and the case is stayed pending issuance of the Eleventh Circuit's mandate in the related appeal. The court accepted the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation in full.
[1] A district court reviews de novo those portions of a magistrate judge's report to which specific written objections are made.
[2] A district court may accept a magistrate judge's report and recommendation without clear error on the face of the record when no objections are filed.
Previewing 2 of 6 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“To challenge the findings and recommendations of a magistrate judge, a party must file specific written objections identifying the portions of the proposed findings and recommendation to which objection is made.”
Establishes the procedural requirement for challenging 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 intelligenceThis case involves Mikov v. Village of Palm Springs, with a related appeal pending in the Eleventh Circuit (Appeal No. 23-13311-GG). The defendant (Vi…
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 Magistrate Judge'S Report And Recommendation Review cases and more on FLexlaw
THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation on Defendant's Motion to Dismiss [ECF No. 10]. The Report recommends that the Court deny Defendant's Motion to Dismiss without prejudice and stay the case pending resolution of an appeal in a related case, Mikov v. Village of Palm Springs, 23-81094-CANNON (11th Cir. Appeal No. 23-13311-GG). No party has filed objections to the Report, and the time to do so has expired [ECF No. 19].
To challenge the findings and recommendations of a magistrate judge, a party must file specific written objections identifying the portions of the proposed findings and recommendation to which objection is made. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); Heath v. Jones, 863 F. 2d 815, 822 (11th Cir. 1989); Macort v. Prem, Inc., 208 F. App’x 781, 784 (11th Cir. 2006). A district court reviews de novo those portions of the report to which objection is made and 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). To the extent a party fails to object to parts of the magistrate judge's report, the Court may accept the recommendation so long as there is no clear error on the face of the
CASE NO. 23-81565-CIV-CANNON/McCabe
record. Macort, 208 F. App’x at 784. Legal conclusions are reviewed de novo, even in the absence of an objection. See LeCroy v. McNeil, 397 F. App’x 554, 556 (11th Cir. 2010); Cooper-Houston v. S. Ry. Co., 37 F. 3d 603, 604 (11th Cir. 1994).
Following review, the Court finds no clear error of law or fact in the Report. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
1. The Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 18] is ACCEPTED.
2. Defendant's Motion to Dismiss [ECF No. 10] is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE in accordance with the Report.
3. This case is STAYED pending the issuance of the Eleventh Circuit's mandate in 11th Cir. Appeal No. 23-13311-GG. No later than 14 days following issuance of the mandate in that appeal, Plaintiff is directed to file a motion to reopen this case.
4. The Clerk is directed to ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSE this case, without prejudice to the parties. Any scheduled hearings are CANCELED, any pending motions are DENIED AS MOOT, and all deadlines are TERMINATED.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Fort Pierce, Florida, this 15th day of May 2024.
AILEEN M. CANNON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
cc: counsel of record
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)
- Heath v. Jones, 863 F.2d 815 (11th Cir. 1989)