Gunn v. Asous

• Court: District Court, S.D. Florida
• Decided: March 31, 2025
• Docket: 0:24-cv-61891
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA MIAMI DIVISION

CASE NO.: 24-cv-61891-GAYLES/AUGUSTIN-BIRCH

BOBBI GUNN,

Plaintiff,

v.

DEPUTY MILAN ASOUS,

Defendant.

___________________________________/

ORDER

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on Defendant Deputy Milan Asous’ Motion to Dismiss (the “Motion”). [ECF No. 8]. The action was referred to Magistrate Judge Panayotta Augustin-Birch, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), for a ruling on all pretrial, non-dispositive matters, and for a Report and Recommendation on any dispositive matters. [ECF No. 14]. On February 11, 2025, Judge Augustin-Birch issued her report recommending that the Motion be granted and this action dismissed with prejudice (the “Report”). [ECF No. 19]. Plaintiff timely objected to the Report. [ECF No. 20]. 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). The Court has conducted a de novo review of the Motion and the record and agrees with Judge Augustin-Birch’s well-reasoned analysis and findings. Plaintiff argues in her objections that

she has not impermissibly split her claims because Deputy Asous is not in privity with the Broward Sheriff’s Office. However, “[t]here is privity between officers of the same government so that a judgment in a suit between a party and a representative . . . is res judicata in [relitigation] of the same issue between that party and another officer of the government.” Montford v. Metro. Dade Cnty. Gov’t, No. 98-1305, 2002 WL 34382746, at *3 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 27, 2002) (quoting Sunshine Anthracite Coal Co. v. Adkins, 310 U.S. 381, 402–03 (1940)). See also Laster v. City of Tampa Police Dep’t, 575 F. App’x 869, 872 n.3 (11th Cir. 2014) (finding the privity element established for claim preclusion where “the City was in privity with [the officer] because the City’s liability was based solely on [the officer’s] actions.”).1 Accordingly, it is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: (1) Judge Augustin Birch’s Report and Recommendation, [ECF No. 19], is ADOPTED in full; (2) Defendant Deputy Milan Asous’ Motion to Dismiss, [ECF No. 8], is GRANTED, and Plaintiff’s Complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice.

1 “Because the doctrine of claim-splitting arises from res judicata, the Court applies the privity analysis pertinent to res judicata.” IOU Central, Inc. v. Pezzano Contracting, No. 19-cv-4882, 2020 WL 8768632, at *5 (N.D. Ga. Sep. 28, 2020). (3) This case is CLOSED, and all pending motions are DENIED as MOOT. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this 31st day of March, 2025.

Df DARRIN P. GAYLES UNITED STATES DI ICT JUDGE