Murray v. Taylor

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA ORLANDO DIVISION

STEPHEN LYNCH MURRAY,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 6:24-cv-6-CEM-LHP

JANELLE IRWIN TAYLOR, PETER D. SCHORSCH and EXTENSIVE ENTERPRISES MEDIA, LLC,

Defendants. / ORDER THIS CAUSE is before the Court on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (“Motion,” Doc. 43), to which Plaintiff submitted a Response (Doc. 44). The United States Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R,” Doc. 47), recommending that the Motion be granted. Plaintiff filed Objections (Doc. 48). Also pending is Plaintiff’s Motion for Stay (Doc. 49), to which Defendants filed a Response (Doc. 50). As set forth below, Plaintiff’s Objections will be overruled, the Motion will be granted and Plaintiff’s Motion to Stay will be denied as moot. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), when a party makes a timely objection, the Court shall review de novo any portions of a magistrate judge’s R&R concerning specific proposed findings or recommendations to which an objection is made. See also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). De novo review “require[s] independent consideration of factual issues based on the record.” Jeffrey S. v. State Bd. of Educ. of Ga., 896

F.2d 507, 513 (11th Cir. 1990) (per curiam). The district court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

Instead of objecting to specific portions of the Magistrate Judge’s reasoning, Plaintiff spills much ink disagreeing with the outcome of the R&R. Much of the Objections consist of a diatribe against the court system. At one point, Plaintiff states courts turn a blind eye to accusations of police lying by responding: “I don’t

understand what you’re saying.” (Doc. 48 at 6). An apt response for the Court to much of these Objections. Furthermore, Plaintiff makes no argument supported by legal authority that the Magistrate Judge was mistaken in her findings. See U.S. Steel

Corp. v. Astrue, 495 F.3d 1272, 1287 n.13 (11th Cir. 2007) (refusing to address a “perfunctory and underdeveloped argument” with no citation to legal authority and collecting cases). After review in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Federal Rule of

Civil Procedure 72, and considering the Objections, the Magistrate Judge’s recommended disposition is accepted. Accordingly, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED as follows: 1. The Report and Recommendation (Doc. 47) is ADOPTED and made a part of this Order.

a. The Objections (Doc. 48) are OVERRULED; b. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 43) is GRANTED; c. The Amended Complaint (Doc. 42) is DISMISSED with prejudice; d. Plaintiff's Motion for Stay (Doc. 49) is DENIED as moot; 2. The Clerk is directed to close this case. DONE and ORDERED in Orlando, Florida on April 25, 2025.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUD@E

Copies furnished to: Counsel of Record Unrepresented Party