Meadows v. American Airlines, Inc.

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA MIAMI DIVISION

CASE NO.: 24-cv-20518-GAYLES/GOODMAN

LAWRENCE M. MEADOWS,

Plaintiff,

v.

AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC.,

Defendant. _______________________/

ORDER

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on Defendant American Airlines, Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint (the “Motion”). [ECF No. 69]. This case was referred to Magistrate Judge Jonathan Goodman for a ruling on all pretrial non-dispositive matters and a report and recommendation on all dispositive matters, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). [ECF No. 43]. On October 22, 2024, Judge Goodman issued his report recommending that the Defendant’s Motion be granted (the “Report”). [ECF No. 94]. Plaintiff timely objected to the Report. [ECF No. 96]. 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). Upon de novo review, the Court agrees with Judge Goodman’s well-reasoned analysis and conclusion that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss should be granted and that the Amended Complaint should be dismissed with prejudice. CONCLUSION After careful consideration, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: (1) Magistrate Judge Goodman’s Report and Recommendation, [ECF No. 94], is ADOPTED in full; (2) Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint, [ECF No. 69] is GRANTED. Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. (3) This case is CLOSED. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this 30th day of December, 2024.

af DARRIN P. GAYLES UNITED STATES DIS T JUDGE