Rotte v. United States ( 2022 )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FORT PIERCE DIVISION Case Number: 21-14453-CIV-MARTINEZ-MAYNARD HAROLD B. ROTTE, Plaintiff, Vs. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant. ee ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS AMENDED COMPLAINT THIS CAUSE was referred to the Honorable Shaniek M. Maynard, United States Magistrate Judge, for a Report and Recommendation on all pretrial matters. (ECF No. 11). Judge Maynard has filed a Report and Recommendation on Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint, (ECF No. 21), which recommends dismissing Plaintiff's Amended Complaint with prejudice (“Second Report”) (ECF No. 26). Plaintiff has filed Objections to the Second Report (“Objections”). (ECF No. 28). The Court has conducted a de novo review of the record and is otherwise fully advised in the premises. Plaintiff's Amended Complaint, (ECF No. 20), did not cure any of the deficiencies identified in Judge Maynard’s Report and Recommendation on Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss the initial Complaint (“First Report”) (see ECF No. 16). The First Report cautioned Plaintiff that the failure to cure the deficiencies identified in the First Report may lead to the dismissal of this action with prejudice. (/d. at 23). In addition, Plaintiff's Objections do not address the findings or conclusions of the Second Report. (See id.). Accordingly, such Objections are not valid and do not affect the Court’s conclusions. See Marsden v. Moore, 847 F.2d 1536, 1548 (11th Cir. 1988) (“Parties filing objections to a magistrate’s report and recommendation must specifically identify those findings objected to. Frivolous, conclusive, or general objections need not be considered by the district court.”); United States v. Schultz, 565 F.3d 1353, 1360 (11th Cir. 2009) (“[A] party that wishes to preserve its objection [to a report and recommendation] must clearly advise the district court and pinpoint the specific findings that the party disagrees with.”). Plaintiff's Objections are therefore overruled. It is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: 1. Judge Maynard’s Report and Recommendation on Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint, (ECF No. 26), is AFFIRMED AND ADOPTED. De Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, (ECF No. 21), is GRANTED. Plaintiffs remaining claims—if any—pertaining to the 2004 Civil Penalty are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. 3. All pending motions are DENIED AS MOOT. 4, The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to mark this case as CLOSED. DONE AND ORDERED in Miami, Florida, this 22 7day of December, 2022. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Copies provided to: Magistrate Judge Maynard Harold B. Rotte, pro se All Counsel of Record