Opinion
1:22-cv-23110-KMM
05-10-2023
KING MIGUEL EDDIE CRAYTON, Plaintiff, v. OPA-LOCKA POLICE DEPARTMENT, et al., Defendants.
ORDER
K. MICHAEL MOORE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
THIS CAUSE came before the Court upon Defendant Opa-Locka Police Department's Motion to Dismiss. (“Motion” or “Mot”) (ECF No. 5). The matter was referred to the Honorable Lauren Fleischer Louis, United States Magistrate Judge. (ECF Nos. 6). On April 22, 2023, Magistrate Judge Louis issued a Report and Recommendation, (“R&R”) (ECF No. 21), recommending the Motion be GRANTED, that the Opa-Locka Police Department be terminated as a party in this action, and that Plaintiff's Complaint (ECF No. 1-2) be dismissed without prejudice for failure to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8. See R&R at 3-4, 7. No objections were filed, and the R&R is now ripe for review. For the following reasons, the Court ADOPTS the R&R (ECF No. 21) and dismisses without prejudice Plaintiff's Complaint.
The 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); Fed. R. Crim. P. 59(b)(3). The Court “must consider de novo any objection to the magistrate judge's recommendation.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 59(b)(3). A de novo review is therefore required if a party files “a proper, specific objection” to a factual finding contained in the report. Macort v. Prem, Inc., 208 Fed.Appx. 781, 784 (11th Cir. 2006). “It is critical that the objection be sufficiently specific and not a general objection to the report” to warrant de novo review. Id. Yet when a party has not properly objected to the magistrate judge's findings, “the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.” See Keaton v. United States, No. 14-21230-CIV, 2015 WL 12780912, at *1 (S.D. Fla. May 4, 2015); see also Lopez v. Berryhill, No. 17-CV-24263, 2019 WL 2254704, at *2 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 26, 2019) (stating that a district judge “evaluate[s] portions of the R & R not objected to under a clearly erroneous standard of review” (citing Davis v. Apfel, 93 F.Supp.2d 1313, 1317 (M.D. Fla. 2000))).
In her Report and Recommendation, Magistrate Judge Louis concludes that: (1) the Opa-Locka Police Department is not a legal entity subject to suit, and is therefore subject to dismissal, see R&R at 3-4; and (2) Plaintiff's Complaint is due to be dismissed for failure to comply with the pleading standard set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, id. at 4-7. This Court agrees.
Accordingly, UPON CONSIDERATION of the Motion, the R&R, the pertinent portions of the record, and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Magistrate Judge Louis's R&R (ECF No. 21) is ADOPTED, and Defendant Opa-Locka Police Department's Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 5) is GRANTED. Plaintiff's Complaint (ECF No. 1-2) is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The Clerk of the Court is instructed to CLOSE this case. Plaintiff may reopen this matter upon the filing of an amended complaint in conformity with this Order.
DONE AND ORDERED.