Rincon v. Village of Palmetto Bay

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO.: 1:16-cv-22254-DPG

CARMEN RINCON and CARLOS RINCON, Personally, and as Personal Representatives of the Estate of Ethan Rincon, deceased,

Plaintiffs,

v.

MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, et al.,

Defendants. _______________________________/

ORDER

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on Magistrate Judge Chris McAliley’s Report and Recommendation (the “Report”), [ECF No. 190], regarding Defendants’, Sergeant Victor Evans (“Evans”) and Officers John Dalton (“Dalton”) and Brian Zamorski (“Zamorski”) (collectively, “Defendants”), Motion for Summary Judgment (the “Motion”) [ECF No. 157]. The matter was referred to Magistrate Judge McAliley, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), for a ruling on all pre-trial matters. [ECF No. 88]. On June 8, 2022, Judge McAliley issued her report recommending that Defendants’ Motion be granted. [ECF No. 190]. Plaintiffs filed timely objections to the Report. [ECF No. 191]. For the reasons that follow, the Court affirms and adopts 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 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). Having conducted a de novo review of the record, including the Motion, the Report, Plaintiffs’ objections, and Defendants’ response to the objections, the Court agrees with Judge McAliley’s well-reasoned analysis and conclusion that Defendants’ Motion should be granted. Accordingly, itis ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: (1) Magistrate Judge McAliley’s Report and Recommendation, [ECF No. 190], is AFFIRMED AND ADOPTED and incorporated into this Order by reference. (2) Defendants’ Motion, [ECF No. 157], is GRANTED. (3) Final Judgment is entered in favor of Defendants Evans, Dalton, and Zamorski as to Counts II and V. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this 30th day of November, 2022.

DARRIN P. GAYLES UNITED STATES DISTRACT JUDGE