STEARS v. APPLE INC.

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO.: 0:24-cv-61260-DPG

KENNETH STEARS,

Plaintiff,

v.

APPLE INC.,

Defendant. ______________________________________/

ORDER

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on Magistrate Judge Panayotta Augustin-Birch’s Report and Recommendation on Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (the “Report”). [ECF No. 27]. On, August 19, 2024, Defendant Apple Inc. filed its Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint (the “Motion”). [ECF No. 9]. Plaintiff then filed his Response, [ECF No. 10], to which Defendant filed its Reply, [ECF No. 20]. On October 30, 2024, the Court referred the Motion to Judge Augustin-Birch pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). [ECF No. 26]. On December 3, 2024, Judge Augustin-Birch issued her Report recommending that the Court grant Defendant’s Motion. [ECF No. 27]. The parties have not objected 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 objections are 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 objections are 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). This Court finds no clear error with Judge Augustin-Birch’s well-reasoned analysis and agrees that the Motion should be granted. Accordingly, itis ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: 1. Magistrate Judge Panayotta Augustin-Birch’s Report and Recommendation on Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss, [ECF No. 27], is AFFIRMED AND ADOPTED and incorporated into this Order by reference; 2. Defendant Apple, Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint, [ECF No. 9], is GRANTED; 3. The Complaint, [ECF No. 1], is hereby DISMISSED without prejudice; 4. Plaintiff may seek leave to amend his complaint within twenty (20) days of this Order; and 5. This case shall be ADMINISRATIVELY CLOSED pending the filing of an amended complaint. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this 31st day of December, 2024.

Df Bld UNITED STATES DIST JUDGE