Wright v. Edwards

United States District Court, Middle District of Florida, Orlando Division · March 28, 2025 · No. 6:24-cv-196-WWB-LHP

Summary

This United States District Court order addresses the plaintiff's objections to a magistrate judge's report and recommendation regarding the defendants' motions to dismiss. After conducting a de novo review, the court overrules the plaintiff's claims of arbitrary discrimination and procedural noncompliance, finding them conclusory or unpersuasive. Consequently, the court adopts the report and recommendation, grants the motions to dismiss, and dismisses the plaintiff's amended complaint without leave to amend.

Court
United States District Court, Middle District of Florida, Orlando Division
Jurisdiction
United States District Court, Middle District of Florida
Decision date
March 28, 2025
Docket number
6:24-cv-196-WWB-LHP
Procedural posture
Defendants filed motions to dismiss; plaintiff filed objections to magistrate's report; district court reviewing de novo.
Standard of review
de novo review of magistrate's findings under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)
Precedential value
nonprecedential
Disposition
dismissed

Topics

motions to dismisscivil proceduresection 1983civil rights

Practice areas

civil procedurecivil rights

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the district court must make a de novo determination of the portions of the magistrate’s report to which objection is made under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
  2. Whether plaintiff’s objections to the magistrate’s report are sufficient to avoid dismissal of the complaint.

Holdings

  1. The district court must make a de novo determination of the portions of the report to which objection is made and may accept, reject, or modify them in whole or in part.
  2. Plaintiff’s objections are overruled; both motions to dismiss are granted and the complaint is dismissed without leave to amend.

Key quotations

When a party objects to a magistrate judge’s findings, the district court must “make a de novo determination of those portions of the report . . . to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). (at 2–6)

Factual background

Plaintiff Michael Joseph Wright filed a civil‑rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Defendants Elliott James Edwards, Matthew A. Kozyra, and Thomas W. Poulton filed motions to dismiss. The magistrate judge issued a report recommending dismissal of the § 1983 claim on res judicata grounds and dismissal of remaining claims for failure to state a claim, without leave to amend.

Procedural history

Magistrate Judge Leslie Hoffman Price issued a report and recommendation recommending dismissal of the plaintiff's §1983 claim and other claims. Plaintiff filed objections and a supplement. The district court adopted the report and granted the motions, dismissing the complaint without leave to amend.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…