AMY
v.
BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF FLORIDA INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The district court adopted a magistrate judge's report and recommendation, granting FIU's motion for summary judgment and denying its motion to dismiss as moot in a case involving claims against Florida International University's Board of Trustees.
The court adopted the magistrate judge's recommendation that FIU's motion for summary judgment should be granted and FIU's motion to dismiss should be denied as moot.
[1] A district court may accept, reject, or modify a magistrate judge's report and recommendation.
[2] Portions of a magistrate judge's report and recommendation to which no specific objections are made are reviewed only for clear error.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“A district court may accept, reject, or modify a magistrate judge's report and recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).”
Establishes the standard of review for magistrate judge reports and recommendations
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiff Amy filed a second amended complaint against FIU's Board of Trustees containing multiple claims (at least fifteen). FIU filed a motion to di…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Clear Error Review cases and more on FLexlaw
THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on the Florida International University Board of Trustees' (the “Defendant” or “FIU”) Motion to Dismiss the Second Through Fifteenth Claims of Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint (the “Motion to Dismiss”) and Motion for Summary Judgement (the “Motion for Summary Judgment”). [ECF Nos. 45, 55]. On January 8, 2024, the Court referred this matter to Magistrate Judge Edwin Torres for a ruling on all pre-trial, nondispositive matters and a report and recommendation on all dispositive matters. [ECF Nos. 64, 65]. On November 20, 2024, Judge Torres entered a Report and Recommendation on Defendant's Motions to Dismiss and Motion for Summary Judgment. [ECF Nos. 66, 67].¹ 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).
The Court finds no clear error with the Magistrate Judge's well-reasoned analysis and agrees that the Motion for Summary Judgment should be granted and the Motion to Dismiss be denied as moot.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
1. Magistrate Judge Edwin G. Torres's Report and Recommendation, [ECF Nos. 66, 67], is AFFIRMED AND ADOPTED and incorporated into this Order by reference. 2. Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 55] is GRANTED. 3. Defendant's Motion to Dismiss [ECF No. 44], is DENIED as MOOT.
4. The Court will enter a separate judgment.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this 14th day of January, 2025.
DARRIN P. GAYLES
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
2
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- United States v. Schultz, 565 F.3d 1353 (11th Cir. 2009)
- Liberty Am. Ins. Grp., Inc. v. Westpoint Underwriters, L.L.C., 2001 WL 1850837 (M.D. Fla. 2001)