Harris v. Miami-Dade County

• Court: District Court, S.D. Florida
• Decided: July 24, 2024
• Docket: 1:19-cv-22799
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA MIAMI DIVISION

CASE NO.: 19-cv-22799-DPG

SYBIL HARRIS, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Jamar Edward Rollins,

Plaintiff,

v.

DETECTIVE ANDREW GARCIA,

Defendant.

___________________________________/

ORDER

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on Defendant Detective Andrew Garcia’s Motion for Summary Judgment (the “Motion”). [ECF No. 146]. The action was referred to Magistrate Judge Lauren F. Louis 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. 154]. On June 7, 2024, Judge Louis issued her report recommending that the Motion be granted (the “Report”). [ECF No. 155]. On June 21, 2024, Plaintiff timely filed objections to the Report, [ECF No. 156], to which Defendant subsequently responded, [ECF No. 157]. 1 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

1 Defendant correctly points out that Plaintiff’s objections at times appear to copy and paste entire sections from the Report, including portions of the Report that directly contradict the arguments counsel attempts to raise in his brief. The Court warns against this practice and urges counsel to use more care in subsequent submissions filed on behalf of his client. 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). In her Report, Judge Louis recommends that the Court grant Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment as to Plaintiff’s remaining counts, Counts II and III.? Upon de novo review, the Court agrees with Judge Louis’s well-reasoned analysis and conclusion that Defendant is entitled to summary judgment as to Counts II and III. CONCLUSION Accordingly, after careful consideration, itis ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: (1) Judge Louis’s Report and Recommendation, [ECF No. 155], is ADOPTED in full. (2) Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, [ECF No. 146] is GRANTED. (3) The Court will enter a separate judgment. (4) Any pending motions are DENIED as moot. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this 24th day of July, 2024.

Df DARRIN P. GAYLES UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2 On August 10, 2022, the Court granted the Motion to Dismiss Counts I and IV of the Fourth Amended Complaint, filed by Defendants Miami-Dade County and Jesus Coto. [ECF No. 117].