WILLIAMS

v.

THE GEO GROUP, INC.

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT & RECOMMENDATION [ECF NO. 63] AND GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS [ECF NO. 42]

THIS CAUSE came before the Court on Magistrate Judge Ryon M. McCabe's Report & Recommendation (the "Report") [ECF No. 63], entered on May 3, 2024. On February 19, 2024, Plaintiff, Essie Mae Williams, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Cedric Levon Williams (the "Estate"), filed a First Amended Complaint (the "Complaint") [ECF No. 41]. In response, on February 26, 2024, Defendant, The Geo Group, Inc. ("Geo”), filed a Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint (the “Motion”) [ECF No. 42]. The Motion was referred to Magistrate Judge Ryon M. McCabe pursuant to the Court's Order Referring Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. [ECF No. 44].

After holding a hearing on May 1, 2024, Judge McCabe issued the Report on May 3, 2024, recommending: (1) the Motion be granted, (2) the Complaint be dismissed without prejudice, and (3) the Plaintiff be afforded one additional chance to cure the pleading deficiencies. See ECF No. 63. Judge McCabe found that the Complaint fails to set forth facts to state a plausible Eighth Amendment violation, fails to make allegations sufficient to demonstrate Monell liability [fn 1] under the informal custom and practice theory, cannot allege a violation of the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act, and fails to allege negligence because of both (i) a failure to plead compliance with the pre-suit requirements of Florida's Medical Malpractice Act and (ii) failure to plead the necessary elements of a common law negligence claim. See id. The Report also advised the Parties that they had fourteen days from receipt of a copy of the Report to object to it. See id. at 13.

Neither party filed objections to the Report, and, instead, both parties filed Notices indicating they do not object to the Report. See ECF Nos. 66 and 67.

When a magistrate judge's "disposition" has properly been objected to, district courts must review the disposition de novo. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). When no party has timely objected, however, “the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee's notes (citation omitted). Although Rule 72 itself is silent on the standard of review, the Supreme Court has acknowledged Congress's intent was to only require a de novo review where objections have been properly filed, not when neither party objects. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985) (“It does not appear that Congress intended to require district court review of a magistrate [judge]'s factual or legal conclusions, under a de novo or any other standard, when neither party objects to those findings.").

The undersigned has reviewed the Report, the record, and the applicable law to assure herself that no clear error appears on the face of the record. In light of that review, the undersigned agrees with the analysis and recommendations stated in Judge McCabe's Report, and agrees with Judge McCabe's conclusion that the Complaint should be dismissed without prejudice and the Estate afforded one further opportunity to attempt to state plausible claims by way of a Second Amended Complaint. Accordingly, it is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Report [ECF No. 63] is AFFIRMED AND ADOPTED as follows:

1. The Motion [ECF No. 42] is GRANTED. 2. The Estate's Amended Complaint [ECF No. 41] is DISMISSED

WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

3. The Estate shall have one further opportunity to correct its pleading deficiencies and shall file its Second Amended Complaint by June 3, 2024.

DONE AND ORDERED in the Southern District of Florida, this 20th day of May, 2024.

MELISSA DAMIAN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE cc: Magistrate Judge Ryon M. McCabe counsel of record

[fn 1]: See Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978).