Naraine v. City of Hollywood

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 21-CIV-60313-RAR

CINDY NARAINE,

Plaintiff,

v.

CITY OF HOLLYWOOD,

Defendant. _______________________________/ ORDER AFFIRMING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon United States Magistrate Judge Jared M. Strauss’s Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 20] (“Report”), filed on June 3, 2021. The Report recommends that the Court grant in part and deny in part Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss [ECF No. 6] (“Motion”). See Report at 18. The Report properly notified the parties of their right to object to Magistrate Judge Strauss’s findings and the consequences for failing to object. Id. at 18-19. The time for objections has passed and neither party filed any objections to the Report. When a magistrate judge’s “disposition” has properly been objected to, district courts must review the disposition de novo. FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(3). However, when no party has timely objected, “the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.” FED. R. CIV. P. 72 advisory committee’s notes (citation omitted). Although Rule 72 itself is silent on the standard of review, the Supreme Court has acknowledged Congress’s intent was to only require a de novo review where objections have been properly filed, not when neither party objects. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985) (“It does not appear that Congress intended to require district court review of a magistrate [judge]’s factual or legal conclusions, under a de novo or any other standard, when neither party objects to those findings.”). Because no party has filed an objection to the Report, the Court did not conduct a de novo review of Magistrate Judge Strauss’s findings. Rather, the Court reviewed the Report for clear error. Finding none, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: 1. The Report [ECF No. 20] is AFFIRMED AND ADOPTED. 2. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss [ECF No. 6] is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART as follows: a. The Motion to Dismiss is DENIED as to Counts I, HI-IV, VI-IX and XI. b. The Motion to Dismiss is DENIED as to Count X to the extent that it is based upon Race Discrimination. c. The Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED as to Counts II and V. d. The Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED as to Count X to the extent that it is based upon National Origin. e. The Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED as to the punitive damages sought by Plaintiff in Counts IX, X and XI. DONE AND ORDERED in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, this 28th day of June, 2021.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Page 2 of 2