Ebeh v. Florida Department of Revenue

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION

HOPE EBEH,

Plaintiff, v. Case No. 8:19-cv-1859-T-60AAS

FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, et al.,

Defendants. /

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION This matter is before the Court on consideration of the report and recommendation of Amanda Arnold Sansone, United States Magistrate Judge, entered on October 3, 2019. (Doc. # 13). Judge Sansone recommends that Plaintiff’s complaint be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. On October 16, 2019, Plaintiff filed objections to the report and recommendation. (Doc. # 14). Defendants have not yet appeared in this case and therefore did not respond to the motion or objection, and the time to respond has expired. Under the Federal Magistrates Act, Congress vested Article III judges with the power to “designate a magistrate judge to hear and determine any pretrial matter pending before the court,” subject to various exceptions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). The Act further vests magistrate judges with authority to submit proposed findings of fact and recommendations for disposition by an Article III judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). After conducting a careful and complete review of the findings and recommendations, a district judge may accept, reject, or modify the magistrate judge’s report and

recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Williams v. Wainwright, 681 F.2d 732 (11th Cir. 1982). In the absence of specific objections, there is no requirement that a district judge review factual findings de novo. Garvey v. Vaughn, 993 F.2d 776, 779 n.9 (11th Cir. 1993). However, the district judge reviews legal conclusions de novo, even in the absence of an objection. See Cooper-Houston

v. S. Ry. Co., 37 F.3d 603, 604 (11th Cir. 1994); Castro Bobadilla v. Reno, 826 F. Supp. 1428, 1431-32 (S.D. Fla. 1993), aff’d, 28 F.3d 116 (11th Cir. 1994) (table). Upon due consideration of the record, including Judge Sansone’s report and recommendation, as well as Plaintiff’s objections, the Court overrules the objections and adopts the report and recommendation. The Court agrees with Judge Sansone’s well-reasoned factual findings and legal conclusions. The

report and recommendation thoughtfully addresses the issues presented, and the objections do not provide a basis for rejecting the report and recommendation. Consequently, Plaintiff’s claims are dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

2 It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED: (1) ~~ Plaintiff’s objections to the report and recommendation (Doc. # 14) are OVERRULED. (2) The report and recommendation (Doc. # 13) is AFFIRMED and ADOPTED and INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE into this Order for all purposes, including appellate review. (3) Plaintiffs claims are DISMISSED without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction to allow Plaintiff to pursue those claims in the appropriate forum, if he may do so in good faith. (4) The Clerk is directed to terminate all other pending motions and thereafter close this case. DONE and ORDERED in Chambers, in Tampa, Florida, this 24th day of October, 2019.

ye N } ( / ) ¥ □ [Ss 1, _| L/ +i 0) to ) TOM BARBER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE