PAGE
v.
O'LEARY
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 accepted the magistrate judge's report and recommendation, denying the defendant sheriff's motion to sever or bifurcate the trial.
Defendant Sheriff moved to sever or bifurcate the trial, arguing that trying plaintiffs' claims together would be prejudicial. The magistrate judge re…
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
_____________________________________/ ORDER ACCEPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [ECF No. 112]
THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon Defendant Sheriff William D. Snyder’s (“Defendant Sheriff”) Motion to Sever/Bifurcate (the “Motion”) [ECF No. 109].
On April 14, 2023, Judge Ryon M. McCabe issued a report recommending that Defendant Sheriff’s Motion be denied (the “Report”) [ECF No. 112]. Defendant Sheriff filed Objections to the Report [ECF No. 113]. The Court has reviewed the Report [ECF No. 112], Defendant Sheriff’s Objections [ECF No. 113], and the full record.1 For the reasons set forth below, the Report [ECF No. 112] is ACCEPTED. 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
to disturb the Report’s well-reasoned conclusion. Defendant Sheriff’s Objections raise the concern that due to the “unusual nature” of the case, the use of a curative instruction, as the Report recommends, would not be sufficient to cure any prejudice attendant to Plaintiffs’ claims being tried together [ECF No. 113 p. 1].
However, a jury is presumed to follow the court’s instructions, United States v. Shenberg, 89 F. 3d 1461, 1472 (11th Cir. 1996), including any limiting or curative instructions that may be necessary. Defendant Sheriff has presented an insufficient basis from which to conclude that this well-established presumption would not apply here. The Court agrees with the Report’s recommendation that Plaintiffs’ claims should be tried together, in a single trial.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
1. The Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 112] is ACCEPTED. 2. Defendant Sheriff William D. Snyder’s Motion to Sever/Bifurcate [ECF No. 109] is DENIED. 3. On or before July 14, 2023, the parties shall file pre-trial filings in accordance with the Court’s Order Resetting Trial Deadlines [ECF No. 107]. 4. Trial in this matter remains scheduled for the two-week trial period beginning September 11, 2023 [ECF No. 107]. CASE NO. 20-14460-CIV-CANNON/McCabe DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Fort Pierce, Florida this 13th day of June 2023.
Le M. CANNON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
ce: 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)
- United States v. Shenberg, 89 F.3d 1461 (11th Cir. 1996)