Coakley v. City of Hollywood

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA MIAMI DIVISION

CASE NO.: 19-cv-62328-GAYLES/STRAUSS

LECHARLES RASHAD COAKLEY,

Plaintiff,

v.

CITY OF HOLLYWOOD,

Defendant. _______________________/

ORDER

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on the Plaintiff’s Motion to Reopen Case, Motion to Order the City of Hollywood to Pay, [ECF No. 178]; (2) Motion to Reopen Case, [ECF No. 180]; and (3) Motion to Accept Payment in Full Offered at Mediation in Videos, [ECF No. 181] (collectively, the “Motions”). The Motions were referred to Magistrate Judge Strauss pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). [ECF No. 183]. On October 4, 2024, Judge Strauss issued his report recommending that the Motions as well as Plaintiff’s subsequently filed Motion to Compel, [ECF No. 184], be denied (the “Report”). [ECF No. 185]. Plaintiff timely objected to the Report. [ECF No. 187]. A district court may accept, reject, or modify a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Those portions of the report and recommendation to which objection is made are accorded de novo review, if those objections “pinpoint the specific findings that the party disagrees with.” United States v. Schultz, 565 F.3d 1353, 1360 (11th Cir. 2009); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). Any portions of the report and recommendation to which no specific objection is made are reviewed only for clear error. Liberty Am. Ins. Grp., Inc. v. WestPoint Underwriters, L.L.C., 199 F. Supp. 2d 1271, 1276 (M.D. Fla. 2001); accord Macort v. Prem, Inc., 208 F. App’x 781, 784 (11th Cir. 2006). Upon de novo review, the Court agrees with Judge Strauss’ well-reasoned analysis and conclusion that Defendant’s Motions and his Motion to Compel, [ECF No. 184], be denied for lack of jurisdiction. Plaintiff's second Motion to Compel, [ECF No. 186], is also denied for that same reason. CONCLUSION After careful consideration, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: (1) Magistrate Judge Strauss’ Report and Recommendation, [ECF No. 185], is ADOPTED in full; (2) Plaintiff's Motion to Reopen Case, Motion to Order the City of Hollywood to Pay [ECF No. 178]; (2) Motion to Reopen Case [ECF No. 180]; (3) Motion to Accept Payment in Full Offered at Mediation in Videos [ECF No. 181]; (4) Motion to Compel [ECF No. 184]; and (5) Motion to Compel [ECF No. 186] are DENIED. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this 21st day of November, 2024.

af DARRIN P. GAYLES UNITED STATES DIS T JUDGE