ROTTE
v.
UNITED STATES
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 recommendation, granting the defendant's motion to dismiss the amended complaint with prejudice.
Plaintiff filed an amended complaint after a prior dismissal, but it failed to cure the identified deficiencies. The plaintiff also filed objections t…
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
ee
ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS AMENDED COMPLAINT THIS CAUSE was referred to the Honorable Shaniek M. Maynard, United States Magistrate Judge, for a Report and Recommendation on all pretrial matters. (ECF No. 11).
Judge Maynard has filed a Report and Recommendation on Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint, (ECF No. 21), which recommends dismissing Plaintiff's Amended Complaint with prejudice (“Second Report”) (ECF No. 26).
Plaintiff has filed Objections to the Second Report (“Objections”). (ECF No. 28).
The Court has conducted a de novo review of the record and is otherwise fully advised in the premises. Plaintiff's Amended Complaint, (ECF No. 20), did not cure any of the deficiencies identified in Judge Maynard’s Report and Recommendation on Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss the initial Complaint (“First Report”) (see ECF No. 16).
The First Report cautioned Plaintiff that the failure to cure the deficiencies identified in the First Report may lead to the dismissal of this action with prejudice. (/d. at 23).
In addition, Plaintiff's Objections do not address the findings or conclusions of the Second Report. (See id.).
Accordingly, such Objections are not valid and
do not affect the Court’s conclusions. See Marsden v. Moore, 847 F. 2d 1536, 1548 (11th Cir. 1988) (“Parties filing objections to a magistrate’s report and recommendation must specifically identify those findings objected to. Frivolous, conclusive, or general objections need not be considered by the district court.”); United States v. Schultz, 565 F. 3d 1353, 1360 (11th Cir. 2009) (“[A] party that wishes to preserve its objection [to a report and recommendation] must clearly advise the district court and pinpoint the specific findings that the party disagrees with.”).
Plaintiff's Objections are therefore overruled. It is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: 1. Judge Maynard’s Report and Recommendation on Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint, (ECF No. 26), is AFFIRMED AND ADOPTED. De Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, (ECF No. 21), is GRANTED. Plaintiffs remaining claims—if any—pertaining to the 2004 Civil Penalty are DISMISSED WITH
PREJUDICE.
3. All pending motions are DENIED AS MOOT.
4, The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to mark this case as CLOSED. DONE AND ORDERED in Miami, Florida, this 22 7day of December, 2022.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Copies provided to: Magistrate Judge Maynard Harold B. Rotte, pro se All Counsel of Record