MEADOWS
v.
AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC.
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.
Plaintiff Meadows appealed a magistrate judge's report recommending dismissal of his First Amended Complaint against American Airlines. The district court conducted de novo review of the objected portions and affirmed the recommendation, granting defendant's motion to dismiss with prejudice.
The court adopted the magistrate judge's report and recommendation in full, granting defendant's Motion to Dismiss and dismissing plaintiff's First Amended Complaint with prejudice.
“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 and the district court's authority over magistrate judge 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 Meadows filed a First Amended Complaint against American Airlines, Inc. The case was referred to Magistrate Judge Jonathan Goodman for rulin…
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 Defendant American Airlines, Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint (the “Motion”). [ECF No. 69]. This case was referred to Magistrate Judge Jonathan Goodman for a ruling on all pretrial non-dispositive matters and a report and recommendation on all dispositive matters, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). [ECF No. 43]. On October 22, 2024, Judge Goodman issued his report recommending that the Defendant's Motion be granted (the “Report”). [ECF No. 94]. Plaintiff timely objected to the Report. [ECF No. 96].
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 objection is 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 objection is 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).
Upon de novo review, the Court agrees with Judge Goodman's well-reasoned analysis and conclusion that Defendant's Motion to Dismiss should be granted and that the Amended Complaint should be dismissed with prejudice.
CONCLUSION
After careful consideration, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
(1) Magistrate Judge Goodman's Report and Recommendation, [ECF No. 94], is ADOPTED in full;
(2) Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint, [ECF No. 69] is GRANTED. Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint is DISMISSED WITH
PREJUDICE.
(3) This case is CLOSED.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this 30th day of December, 2024.
DARRIN P. GAYLES
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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)