FLORIDA AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION
v.
ADMINISTRATOR FOR THE CENTERS FOR MEDICARE & MEDICAID SERVICES
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 State of Florida challenged agency action by filing a motion for preliminary injunction and faced a motion to dismiss. The district court, reviewing the magistrate judge's report and recommendation de novo, determined that the case lacked final agency action and dismissed the complaint without prejudice.
The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss and denied the plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction without prejudice, finding that the lack of final agency action is fatal to the plaintiffs' claims. The complaint was dismissed without prejudice, allowing plaintiffs to refile if final agency action is obtained.
[1] A party challenging a magistrate judge's report and recommendation must file specific written objections identifying the portions of the report and the basis for the obje…
[2] A district court must conduct a de novo review of portions of a magistrate judge's report to which a party has made timely and specific objections.
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiffs (State of Florida et al.) brought suit against Defendants (Chiquita Brooks-Lasure et al.) and sought preliminary injunctive relief. The Mag…
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 Magistrate Judge'S Report cases and more on FLexlaw
THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction [DE 10], Defendants' Motion to Dismiss [DE 40], and the Report and Recommendation entered by Magistrate Judge Augustin-Birch on January 29, 2024 (the “Report”) [DE 48]. The Court has conducted a de novo review of Motions, the Report, Plaintiffs' Objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation [DE 49], Defendants' Response to Plaintiffs' Objections [DE 52], and is otherwise fully advised in the premises. The Court notes that Judge Augustin- Birch held a hearing on the Motions on December 20, 2024. See [DE 44].
A party seeking to challenge the findings in a report and recommendation of a United States Magistrate Judge must file “written objections which shall specifically identify the portions of the proposed findings and recommendation to which objection is made and the specific basis for objection.” Macort v. Prem, Inc., 208 F. App’x 781, 783 (11th Cir. 2006) (quoting Heath v. Jones, 863 F. 2d 815, 822 (11th Cir. 1989)). “It is critical that the objection be sufficiently specific and not a general objection to the report.” Macort, 208 F. App’x at 784 (citing Goney v. Clark, 749 F. 2d 5, 7 (3d Cir. 1984)). If a party makes a timely and specific objection to a finding in the report and recommendation, the district court must conduct a de novo review of the portions of the report to which objection is made. Macort, 208 F. App’x at
783-84; see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The district court may accept, reject, or modify in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the Magistrate Judge. Macort, 208 F. App’x at 784; 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Accordingly, the Court has undertaken a de novo review of the Report, the record, and Plaintiffs' Objections. Having carefully considered Plaintiffs' Objections, the Court overrules the Objections. The Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge's conclusion that, based upon the lack of final agency action, the Motion for Preliminary Injunction should be denied without prejudice and the Motion to Dismiss should be granted.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
1. The Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation [DE 48] is hereby APPROVED; 2. Plaintiffs' Objections [DE 49] are hereby OVERRULED; 3. Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction [DE 10] is hereby DENIED; 4. Defendants' Motion to Dismiss [DE 40] is hereby GRANTED; 5. The Complaint is hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE; 6. The Clerk is DIRECTED to CLOSE this case and DENY AS MOOT any pending motions.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Fort Lauderdale, Broward County, Florida this 6th day of March, 2024.
Copies furnished to: Counsel of record
WILLIAM P. DIMITROULEAS
United States District Judge
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Heath v. Jones, 863 F.2d 815 (11th Cir. 1989)
- Goney v. Clark, 749 F.2d 5 (3d Cir. 1984)