Summary
The United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida affirmed and adopted the magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation recommending dismissal of Plaintiff’s claims. The court granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss, denied any remaining motions as moot, and closed the case.
Holdings
- Objections are improper when they expand upon or reframe arguments already considered by the magistrate judge or merely disagree with the magistrate judge's conclusions; such objections do not warrant rejection of the Report and Recommendation.
- The magistrate judge did not apply the motion-to-dismiss standard erroneously, and the Report and Recommendation should be affirmed and adopted.
Questions Presented
- Whether Plaintiff's objections to the magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation were sufficiently specific and proper to require rejection or modification of the recommendation.
- Whether the magistrate judge applied the motion-to-dismiss standard erroneously by resolving factual disputes, legal ambiguities, disclosure adequacy, and contract ambiguity against Plaintiff.
- Whether Defendants' motion to dismiss should be granted and the action dismissed.
Disposition
dismissed
Cases Cited (4)
- United States v. Schultz, 565 F.3d 1353, 1360 (11th Cir. 2009)(followed)
- Melillo v. United States, No. 17-CV-80489, 2018 WL 4258355, at *1 (S.D. Fla. Sept. 6, 2018)(followed)
- Marlite, Inc. v. Eckenrod, No. 10-23641-CIV, 2012 WL 3614212, at *2 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 21, 2012)(followed)
- Camardo v. Gen. Motors Hourly-Rate Emps. Pension Plan, 806 F. Supp. 380, 382 (W.D.N.Y. 1992)(followed)
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…