Hardin v. Oakley Transport Inc.

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION

EUGENE HARDIN,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No: 8:21-cv-2980-MSS-AEP

OAKLEY TRANSPORT INC. and OAKLEY TRANSPORTATION GROUP INC.,

Defendants.

ORDER THIS CAUSE comes before the Court for consideration of Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File a Seventh Amended Complaint, (Dkt. 119), and Defendants’ response in opposition thereto. (Dkt. 120) On March 19, 2024, United States Magistrate Judge Anthony E. Porcelli issued a Report and Recommendation, (Dkt. 124), which recommended Plaintiff’s Motion be denied. Upon consideration of all relevant filings, case law, and being otherwise fully advised, the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation and DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File a Seventh Amended Complaint. In the Eleventh Circuit, a district judge may accept, reject, or modify the magistrate judge's report and recommendation after conducting a careful and complete review of the findings and recommendations. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Williams v. Wainwright, 681 F.2d 732, 732 (11th Cir. 1982). A district judge “shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). This requires

that the district judge “give fresh consideration to those issues to which specific objection has been made by a party.” Jeffrey S. v. State Bd. of Educ., 896 F.2d 507, 512 (11th Cir.1990) (quoting H.R. 1609, 94th Cong. § 2 (1976)). Absent 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), and the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings and recommendations. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The district judge reviews legal conclusions de novo, even in the absence of an objection. See Cooper-Houston v. Southern Ry., 37 F.3d 603, 604 (11th Cir. 1994).

Upon consideration of the Report and Recommendation, in conjunction with an independent examination of the file, the Court is of the opinion the Report and Recommendation should be adopted, confirmed, and approved in all respects. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that: 1. The Report and Recommendation, (Dkt. 124), is CONFIRMED and

ADOPTED as part of this Order. 2. Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File a Seventh Amended Complaint, (Dkt. 119), is DENIED. DONE and ORDERED in Tampa, Florida, this 3rd day of April 2024. ail A [ )/ + we RF of Pe eg Jf MARYS. SCRIVEN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Copies furnished to: Counsel of Record Any Unrepresented Person