Opinion
Case No: 3:13-cv-1138-J-39PDB
04-01-2014
ERIC WENDELL HOLLOMAN, Plaintiff, v. BURGER KING RESTAURANT Defendant.
ORDER
THIS CAUSE is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation ("R&R") (Doc. 15) issued by United States Magistrate Judge Barksdale on February 13, 2014. In the R&R, Magistrate Judge Barksdale recommends: Plaintiff Holloman's ("Mr. Holloman's") Second Amended Complaint ("complaint") (Doc. 11) be dismissed without prejudice; Mr. Holloman's Motion to Appoint Counsel (Doc. 12) be denied as moot; Mr. Holloman's Motion for Extension (Doc. 14) (relating to the date on his motion to proceed without payment) be denied as moot; and that the case be closed. In response, Mr. Holloman timely filed his objections (Doc. 16) to the R&R. Accordingly the matter is ripe for review.
Mr. Holloman filed a response (Doc. 16) to the R&R titled "Motion to the Court to Not Dismiss His Complaint, Civil Action without Prejudice." Mr. Holloman cites to Rule 6.02(a) of the Local Rules of the Middle District of Florida, which describes the requirements for filing an objection to a magistrate judge's report and recommendation. Mr. Holloman further classifies his response as "Written objections to the Court['s] Last Report and Recommendation." Therefore, the Court considers his response as an objection to the R&R.
Discussion
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). If no specific objections to findings of fact are filed, the district court is not required to conduct a de novo review of those findings. See Garvey v. Vaughn, 993 F.2d 776, 779 n.9 (11th Cir. 1993); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). However, the district court must review legal conclusions de novo. See Cooper-Houston v. Southern Ry. Co., 37 F.3d 603, 604 (11th Cir. 1994); United States v. Rice, No. 2:07-mc-8-FtM029SPC, 2007 WL 1428615 at *1 (M.D. Fla. May 14, 2007).
For the reasons outlined in the R&R, the Magistrate Judge correctly finds that Plaintiff's allegations fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. In his complaint, Mr. Holloman describes his very unpleasant treatment at the hands of Burger King. Mr. Holloman claims as a result of his less than nimble handling of his walking cane he spilled his drink. Following the mishap, Mr. Holloman alleges Burger King barred him from the restaurant. Mr. Holloman seeks to establish that Burger King's subsequent blockade on Mr. Holloman was due to Burger King's discrimination against Mr. Holloman based on his disability, and possibly because of his age, race, color, national origin, and religion. However, as the R&R points out, Mr. Holloman fails to allege facts, taken as true and liberally construed, which would entitle Mr. Holloman to relief under any of these theories. In his objection (Doc. 16), Mr. Holloman does not cite to any facts the Magistrate Judge may have overlooked, misconstrued, or otherwise not considered.
As the R&R points out, Mr. Holloman cites numerous statutes in his complaint. It is not clear if Mr. Holloman is only seeking relief under a claim alleging 42 U.S.C. § 12101 violations. However, the R&R generously considers all possible claims which could arise from Mr. Holloman's complaint.
--------
Accordingly, after independent review and due consideration, it is
ORDERED:
1. The Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (Doc. 15) is ADOPTED as the opinion of the Court.
2. Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint (Doc. 11) is DISMISSED without prejudice.
3. Plaintiff's Motions for Extension (Doc. 14) and to Appoint Counsel (Doc. 12) are DENIED as moot.
4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to TERMINATE all pending motions and close the case.
DONE and ORDERED in Jacksonville, Florida this 1st day of April, 2014.
__________________________
BRIAN J. DAVIS
United States District Judge
mw
Copies furnished to:
Counsel of Record
Unrepresented Parties