UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case No. 21-cv-22016-BLOOM/Otazo-Reyes
JENNIFER GRAPPELL,
Plaintiff,
v.
ALBERTO M. CARVALHO, et al.,
Defendants. _______________________________/
ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon the Honorable Alicia M. Otazo-Reyes’s Report and Recommendation Re: Motions to Dismiss, ECF No. [68] (“Report”). On October 18, 2021, Judge Otazo-Reyes issued her Report, recommending that the Court grant with prejudice: (1) Defendants Governor Ron DeSantis’s (“Governor DeSantis”) and Department of Education Commissioner Richard Corcoran’s (“Commissioner Corcoran”) Motion to Dismiss Complaint and Amended Complaint, ECF No. [12]; (2) Defendant Senator Annette Taddeo’s (“Senator Taddeo”) Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint and Incorporated Memorandum of Law, ECF No. [40]; (3) Defendant Senator Rick Scott’s (“Senator Scott”) Motion to Dismiss Complaint and Amended Complaint, ECF No. [41]; (4) School Board Defendants’1 Combined Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint with Prejudice, ECF No. [47]; and (5) Defendant United States Senator Marco Rubio’s (“Senator Rubio”) Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. [61] (collectively, “Motions to
1 The School Board Defendants include the following individuals: Alberto M. Carvalho, Perla Tabares Hantman, Dr. Martin Karp, Dr. Dorothy Bendross-Mindingall, Susie V. Castillo, Dr. Lawrence S. Feldman, Dr. Steve Gallon III, Dr. Lubby Navarro, Dr. Marta Perez, Marie Tere Rojas, Walter J. Harvey, Luis M. Garcia, Jordan A. Madrigal, Edwin Lopez, Ian Moffett, Bart Christie, Dr. Karen Silva-Haj, Jennie Flores, and Matthew Sperling. Dismiss”). ECF No. [68] at 18. The Report advised that any objections to the Report’s findings were due within fourteen days of receipt of the Report. Id. Plaintiff Jennifer Grappell (“Plaintiff”) timely filed Objections to the Report, ECF No. [69] (“Objections”), primarily arguing that the Report is “based on false pretenses because defendants lied to the court and presented false statements to support their grounds for dismissal” and that
“[g]ranting defendants’ motions to dismiss would rule against the weight of the evidence.” ECF No. [69] at 2. Plaintiff further explains that she “is prepared with ample sworn affidavits of truth & videos to disprove a shotgun pleading.” Id. To date, only Senator Marco Rubio filed a Response to Plaintiff’s Objections. ECF No. [70]. This Court has conducted a de novo review of the record, including the portions of the Report to which Plaintiff has objected, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), and the remainder of the Report for clear error, and is otherwise fully advised. See Williams v. McNeil, 557 F.3d 1287, 1291 (11th Cir. 2009) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)). The Court finds that Plaintiff’s Objections are without merit and therefore overruled. See Taylor v. Cardiovascular Specialists, P.C., 4 F. Supp. 3d 1374, 1377 (N.D. Ga. 2014) (citing United States
v. Slay, 714 F.2d 1093, 1095 (11th Cir. 1983)). I. BACKGROUND The Court assumes the reader’s familiarity with the facts underlying this case and does not repeat them. Additionally, the Court adopts Judge Otazo-Reyes’s description of the procedural history of this case. ECF No. [68] at 2-11. II. LEGAL STANDARD When a magistrate judge’s “disposition” has been properly objected to, district courts must review the disposition de novo. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). Although Rule 72 is silent on the standard of review, the United States Supreme Court has determined Congress’s intent was to require de novo review only when objections were properly filed, not when neither party objects. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985) (“It does not appear that Congress intended to require district court review of a magistrate[] [judge]’s factual or legal conclusions, under a de novo or any other standard, when neither party objects to those findings.” (alterations added)). A proper objection “identifie[s] specific findings set forth in the [Report] and articulate[s] a legal ground for
objection.” Leatherwood v. Anna’s Linens Co., 384 F. App’x 853, 857 (11th Cir. 2010) (alterations added) (citation omitted). “Frivolous, conclusive, or general objections need not be considered by the district court.” Id. (quoting Marsden v. Moore, 847 F.2d 1536, 1548 (11th Cir. 1988) (internal quotation marks omitted) (citation omitted)); see also Russell v. United States, No. 11-20557-CIV, 2012 WL 10026019, at *1 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 17, 2012) (declining to address general or blanket objections not specifically identifying aspects of the magistrate judge’s report to which the petitioner objected). III. DISCUSSION Plaintiff raises three principal objections to the Report. First, Plaintiff argues that this Court
should “disregard” Judge Otazo-Reyes’s “flawed” Report because it highlights that while the Amended Complaint references “Attachment C,” no such attachment was provided. ECF No. [69] at 1; see also ECF No. [68] at 11; ECF No. [9] at 4.2 Next, Plaintiff argues that “defendants lied to the court and presented several false statements to support their grounds for dismissal” and that Judge Otazo-Reyes “found merit in defendants’ perjury.” ECF No. [69] at 1-2. Lastly, despite Judge Otazo-Reyes’s recommendation that the Amended Complaint be dismissed on the merits rather than as a shotgun pleading, Plaintiff argues that she “is prepared with ample sworn affidavits
2 Judge Otazo-Reyes correctly found that “Attachment C” referenced in the Relief section of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, ECF No. [9] at 4, was not provided. See generally id. of truth & videos to disprove a shotgun pleading” and that “[g]ranting defendants’ motions to dismiss would rule against the weight of the evidence.” Id. at 2; see also ECF No. [68] at 11. Upon review, Plaintiff’s Objections are not well-taken and are overruled. As an initial matter, the Court must highlight that despite Plaintiff’s numerous accusations against both Judge Otazo-Reyes and Defendants, those accusations are wholly inappropriate, unfounded, and patently
frivolous. Indeed, Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate any semblance of bad faith on behalf of Defendants or Defendants’ counsel, or that Defendants’ arguments in support of dismissal are not warranted by existing law and its application to the instant case. See generally ECF No. [69]. Additionally, Plaintiff’s Objections are improper because they largely expand upon and reframe arguments already made and thoroughly considered by Judge Otazo-Reyes, or they simply disagree with Judge Otazo-Reyes’s conclusions. Indeed, Plaintiff copies and pastes verbatim large portions of her underlying Responses to Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss, ECF Nos. [44], [55], and [68], into her Objections to purportedly show the correctness of her analysis. Compare ECF Nos. [44], [55], and [68], with ECF No. [69]. “It is improper for an objecting party to . . . submit
[ ] papers to a district court which are nothing more than a rehashing of the same arguments and positions taken in the original papers submitted to the Magistrate Judge.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case No. 21-cv-22016-BLOOM/Otazo-Reyes
JENNIFER GRAPPELL,
Plaintiff,
v.
ALBERTO M. CARVALHO, et al.,
Defendants. _______________________________/
ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon the Honorable Alicia M. Otazo-Reyes’s Report and Recommendation Re: Motions to Dismiss, ECF No. [68] (“Report”). On October 18, 2021, Judge Otazo-Reyes issued her Report, recommending that the Court grant with prejudice: (1) Defendants Governor Ron DeSantis’s (“Governor DeSantis”) and Department of Education Commissioner Richard Corcoran’s (“Commissioner Corcoran”) Motion to Dismiss Complaint and Amended Complaint, ECF No. [12]; (2) Defendant Senator Annette Taddeo’s (“Senator Taddeo”) Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint and Incorporated Memorandum of Law, ECF No. [40]; (3) Defendant Senator Rick Scott’s (“Senator Scott”) Motion to Dismiss Complaint and Amended Complaint, ECF No. [41]; (4) School Board Defendants’1 Combined Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint with Prejudice, ECF No. [47]; and (5) Defendant United States Senator Marco Rubio’s (“Senator Rubio”) Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. [61] (collectively, “Motions to
1 The School Board Defendants include the following individuals: Alberto M. Carvalho, Perla Tabares Hantman, Dr. Martin Karp, Dr. Dorothy Bendross-Mindingall, Susie V. Castillo, Dr. Lawrence S. Feldman, Dr. Steve Gallon III, Dr. Lubby Navarro, Dr. Marta Perez, Marie Tere Rojas, Walter J. Harvey, Luis M. Garcia, Jordan A. Madrigal, Edwin Lopez, Ian Moffett, Bart Christie, Dr. Karen Silva-Haj, Jennie Flores, and Matthew Sperling. Dismiss”). ECF No. [68] at 18. The Report advised that any objections to the Report’s findings were due within fourteen days of receipt of the Report. Id. Plaintiff Jennifer Grappell (“Plaintiff”) timely filed Objections to the Report, ECF No. [69] (“Objections”), primarily arguing that the Report is “based on false pretenses because defendants lied to the court and presented false statements to support their grounds for dismissal” and that
“[g]ranting defendants’ motions to dismiss would rule against the weight of the evidence.” ECF No. [69] at 2. Plaintiff further explains that she “is prepared with ample sworn affidavits of truth & videos to disprove a shotgun pleading.” Id. To date, only Senator Marco Rubio filed a Response to Plaintiff’s Objections. ECF No. [70]. This Court has conducted a de novo review of the record, including the portions of the Report to which Plaintiff has objected, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), and the remainder of the Report for clear error, and is otherwise fully advised. See Williams v. McNeil, 557 F.3d 1287, 1291 (11th Cir. 2009) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)). The Court finds that Plaintiff’s Objections are without merit and therefore overruled. See Taylor v. Cardiovascular Specialists, P.C., 4 F. Supp. 3d 1374, 1377 (N.D. Ga. 2014) (citing United States
v. Slay, 714 F.2d 1093, 1095 (11th Cir. 1983)). I. BACKGROUND The Court assumes the reader’s familiarity with the facts underlying this case and does not repeat them. Additionally, the Court adopts Judge Otazo-Reyes’s description of the procedural history of this case. ECF No. [68] at 2-11. II. LEGAL STANDARD When a magistrate judge’s “disposition” has been properly objected to, district courts must review the disposition de novo. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). Although Rule 72 is silent on the standard of review, the United States Supreme Court has determined Congress’s intent was to require de novo review only when objections were properly filed, not when neither party objects. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985) (“It does not appear that Congress intended to require district court review of a magistrate[] [judge]’s factual or legal conclusions, under a de novo or any other standard, when neither party objects to those findings.” (alterations added)). A proper objection “identifie[s] specific findings set forth in the [Report] and articulate[s] a legal ground for
objection.” Leatherwood v. Anna’s Linens Co., 384 F. App’x 853, 857 (11th Cir. 2010) (alterations added) (citation omitted). “Frivolous, conclusive, or general objections need not be considered by the district court.” Id. (quoting Marsden v. Moore, 847 F.2d 1536, 1548 (11th Cir. 1988) (internal quotation marks omitted) (citation omitted)); see also Russell v. United States, No. 11-20557-CIV, 2012 WL 10026019, at *1 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 17, 2012) (declining to address general or blanket objections not specifically identifying aspects of the magistrate judge’s report to which the petitioner objected). III. DISCUSSION Plaintiff raises three principal objections to the Report. First, Plaintiff argues that this Court
should “disregard” Judge Otazo-Reyes’s “flawed” Report because it highlights that while the Amended Complaint references “Attachment C,” no such attachment was provided. ECF No. [69] at 1; see also ECF No. [68] at 11; ECF No. [9] at 4.2 Next, Plaintiff argues that “defendants lied to the court and presented several false statements to support their grounds for dismissal” and that Judge Otazo-Reyes “found merit in defendants’ perjury.” ECF No. [69] at 1-2. Lastly, despite Judge Otazo-Reyes’s recommendation that the Amended Complaint be dismissed on the merits rather than as a shotgun pleading, Plaintiff argues that she “is prepared with ample sworn affidavits
2 Judge Otazo-Reyes correctly found that “Attachment C” referenced in the Relief section of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, ECF No. [9] at 4, was not provided. See generally id. of truth & videos to disprove a shotgun pleading” and that “[g]ranting defendants’ motions to dismiss would rule against the weight of the evidence.” Id. at 2; see also ECF No. [68] at 11. Upon review, Plaintiff’s Objections are not well-taken and are overruled. As an initial matter, the Court must highlight that despite Plaintiff’s numerous accusations against both Judge Otazo-Reyes and Defendants, those accusations are wholly inappropriate, unfounded, and patently
frivolous. Indeed, Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate any semblance of bad faith on behalf of Defendants or Defendants’ counsel, or that Defendants’ arguments in support of dismissal are not warranted by existing law and its application to the instant case. See generally ECF No. [69]. Additionally, Plaintiff’s Objections are improper because they largely expand upon and reframe arguments already made and thoroughly considered by Judge Otazo-Reyes, or they simply disagree with Judge Otazo-Reyes’s conclusions. Indeed, Plaintiff copies and pastes verbatim large portions of her underlying Responses to Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss, ECF Nos. [44], [55], and [68], into her Objections to purportedly show the correctness of her analysis. Compare ECF Nos. [44], [55], and [68], with ECF No. [69]. “It is improper for an objecting party to . . . submit
[ ] papers to a district court which are nothing more than a rehashing of the same arguments and positions taken in the original papers submitted to the Magistrate Judge. Clearly, parties are not to be afforded a ‘second bite at the apple’ when they file objections to a [Report].” Marlite, Inc. v. Eckenrod, No. 10-23641-CIV, 2012 WL 3614212, at *2 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 21, 2012) (quoting Camardo v. Gen. Motors Hourly-Rate Emps. Pension Plan, 806 F. Supp. 380, 382 (W.D.N.Y. 1992)). Moreover, the Court finds Judge Otazo-Reyes’s Report to be well-reasoned and correct. Therefore, Plaintiff’s Objections are overruled. Case No. 21-cv-22016-BLOOM/Otazo-Reyes
IV. CONCLUSION Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: 1. Magistrate Judge Otazo-Reyes’s Report and Recommendations, ECF No. [68], is ADOPTED. 2. Plaintiff's Objections, ECF No. [69], are OVERRULED. 3. The Motions to Dismiss, ECF Nos. [12], [40], [41], [47], & [61], are GRANTED. 4. Plaintiffs Amended Complaint, ECF No. [9], is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. 5. The Clerk is directed to CLOSE the case. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, on November 5, 2021.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Copies to: Counsel of Record Jennifer Grappell 10390 S.W. 130th Street Miami, FL 33176 Email: SHADY741 @ME.COM