Nadine Sutherland v. City of Pembroke Pines

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO.: 25-cv-60723-GAYLES/STRAUSS

NADINE SUTHERLAND,

Plaintiff,

v.

CITY OF PEMBROKE PINES,

Defendant.

___________________________________/

ORDER

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint (the “Motion”). [ECF No. 33]. The action was referred to Magistrate Judge Jared M. Strauss, 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. 37]. On October 15, 2025, Judge Strauss issued his report recommending that the Motion be granted and the Amended Complaint and Second Amended Complaint1 be dismissed without prejudice and with leave to amend (the “Report”). [ECF No. 40]. No party has filed objections to the Report. 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

1 The Motion addresses Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, [ECF No. 28], rather than Plaintiff’s Second Amended Com- plaint, [ECF No. 31], which Plaintiff filed without leave to amend. The Report notes that the two complaints are materially the same less the titling of the documents and that its analysis applies equally to both. See [ECF No. 40]. 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). The Court has reviewed the Report for clear error and agrees with Judge Strauss’s well- reasoned analysis and findings. Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: (1) Judge Strauss’s Report and Recommendation, [ECF No. 40], is ADOPTED in full; (2) Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint, [ECF No. 33], is GRANTED, and Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint and Second Amended Complaint are DISMISSED without prejudice and with leave to amend. (3) Plaintiff shall file a Third Amended Complaint on or before November 10, 2025. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this 31st day of October, 2025.

of

UNITED STATES DI CT JUDGE