Lawson v. Visionworks of America, Inc.

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA ORLANDO DIVISION

ANTHONY LAWSON,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 6:22-cv-1375-RBD-EJK

VISIONWORKS OF AMERICA, INC.,

Defendant. ____________________________________

ORDER Before the Court is Defendant’s motion to dismiss (Doc. 18 (“Motion”)). In this Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”) case, Plaintiff received three text messages from Defendant, an optical retailer, reminding him to make an appointment for an eye exam. (Doc. 1.) Defendant moved to dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint, arguing (among other things) that it failed to allege an injury-in-fact sufficient to establish standing under the TCPA. (Doc. 18.) On referral, U.S. Magistrate Judge Embry J. Kidd entered a Report and Recommendation submitting that the Court should grant the Motion and dismiss the Complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction on the basis of Salcedo v. Hanna, 936 F.3d 1162 (11th Cir. 2019) (finding that receipt of single text message did not establish TCPA standing). (Doc. 40 (“R&R”).) The parties did not object to the R&R and the time has passed, so the Court examines the R&R for clear error only. See Macort v. Prem, Inc., 208 F. App’x 781, 784 (11th Cir. 2006). Finding none, the thorough and well-reasoned R&R is due to be adopted. Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED: 1. The R&R (Doc. 40) is ADOPTED, CONFIRMED, and made a part of this Order in its entirety. 2. Defendant’s Motion (Doc. 18) is GRANTED. 3. Plaintiff's Complaint (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE without leave to amend.1 4, The Clerk is DIRECTED to close the file. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers in Orlando, Florida, on March 27, 2023.

f] ee py é el ROY B. DALTON JR: United States District Judge

1 For the reasons given in the R&R, particularly the qualitative lack of harm and de minimis wasted time, the Court finds that any amendment would not establish standing and thus would be futile. See Stanberry v. Fox, No. 2:21-cv-826, 2021 WL 5999308, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Dec. 20, 2021). (Plaintiff did not assert there was any additional harm to allege in his response to Defendant's Motion, nor did he request leave to amend. (Doc. 34.))