BILAL
v.
BENOIT
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 recommendation, granting motions to dismiss federal claims with prejudice and remanding state law claims.
Plaintiff objected to a magistrate judge's report and recommendation. The plaintiff argued the magistrate judge lacked subject matter jurisdiction. Th…
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 Federal Claims cases and more on FLexlaw
This case is before the Court based on the magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation (R&R) (Doc. 30) and Plaintiff’s “Response in Opposition to the Report & Recommendation” (Doc. 32). The Court will treat Plaintiff’s “Response” as an objection to the R&R under Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). The Court reviewed the issues raised in the objection de novo as required by 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3), and based on that review, the Court agrees with the magistrate judge’s recommended disposition.1 The arguments raised in Plaintiff’s objection are meritless and the Court sees no need to individually
That said, the Court will briefly address Plaintiff’s argument that the magistrate judge “lacked subject matter jurisdiction to make rulings in this case without the consent of Plaintiff.” Doc. 32 at 1. This argument is meritless because this case was referred to the magistrate judge under 28 U.S.C. §636(b), not §636(c). See N.D. Fla. Loc. R. 72.2(E). The parties’ consent is required for the magistrate judge to enter judgment under §636(c), but it is not required where (as here) the case is referred to the magistrate judge to rule on pretrial matters and prepare a report containing proposed findings of fact, proposed conclusions of law, and a recommended disposition under §636(b). See United States v. Varnado, 447 F. App'x 48, 49 (11th Cir. 2011) (citing Thomas v. Whitworth, 136 F. 3d 756, 758 (11th
Cir. 1998)). Accordingly, it is ORDERED that: 1. The magistrate judge’s R&R is adopted and incorporated by reference in this Order. 2. Defendant Hodges’ motion to dismiss (Doc. 17) is GRANTED to the extent that all federal claims against Hodges are DISMISSED WITH
PREJUDICE.
3. Defendant Escambia County Sheriff Office GECSO)’s motion to dismiss (Doc. 23) is GRANTED to the extent that all federal claims against the ECSO are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. 4. Pursuant to the Court’s inherent authority, all federal claims against the unserved Defendants are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as frivolous. 5. Plaintiff's motions to remand (Docs. 9, 29) are DENIED AS MOOT. 6. Defendant ECSO’s motion to strike Plaintiff's corrected amended complaint (Doc. 26) is DENIED AS MOOT. 7. Plaintiff's state law claims are REMANDED to the Circuit Court of the First Judicial Circuit in and for Escambia County, Florida. 8. The Clerk shall enter judgment in accordance with this Order and close the case file. DONE and ORDERED this 8th day of May, 2023. [...] Wood
T.KENT WETHERELL,I
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case No. 3:23cv4754-TKW-HTC