HELMKE
v.
CITY OF PORT ST. LUCIE
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 court accepted the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, granting in part and denying in part the defendant's motion to dismiss.
Plaintiff sued the City of Port St. Lucie. The Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation on the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. No objections…
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 Discharge cases and more on FLexlaw
_______________________________/ ORDER ACCEPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [ECF No. 19]
THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation on Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint (the “Report”) [ECF No. 19], issued on April 11, 2023.
On February 3, 2023, Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint (the “Motion”) [ECF No. 11].
On April 11, 2023, following referral, Judge McCabe issued a Report recommending that the Motion be granted in part and denied in part [ECF No. 19 pp. 1, 11]. Objections to the Report were due on April 25, 2023 [ECF No. 19 p. 11]. No party filed objections, and the time to do so has expired [ECF No. 19 p. 11]. To challenge the findings and recommendations of a magistrate judge, a party must file specific written objections identifying the portions of the proposed findings and recommendation to which objection is made. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); Heath v. Jones, 863 F. 2d 815, 822 (11th Cir. 1989); Macort v. Prem, Inc., 208 F. App’x 781, 784 (11th Cir. 2006). A district court reviews de novo those portions of the report to which objection is made and 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)(1). To the extent a party fails to object to parts of the magistrate judge’s report, the Court may accept the recommendation so long as there is no clear error on the face of the record. Macort, 208 F. App’x at 784. Legal conclusions are reviewed de novo, even in the absence of an objection. See LeCroy v. McNeil, 397 F. App’x 554, 556 (11th Cir. 2010); Cooper-Houston v.
S. Ry. Co., 37 F. 3d 603, 604 (11th Cir. 1994).
Following de novo review, the Court finds the Report to be well reasoned and correct. For the reasons set forth in the Report [ECF No. 19 pp. 4–10], it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: 1. The Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 19] is ACCEPTED. 2. The Motion [ECF No. 11] is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART as follows: a. As to Count I, the Motion is DENIED as to Defendant’s failure to accommodate Plaintiff’s December 2021 request to work remotely but GRANTED as to all other requests for accommodation. b. As to Count II, the Motion is GRANTED. Count II of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.1
c. As to Count III, the Motion is DENIED as to Plaintiff’s discharge but GRANTED as to all other allegedly adverse employment actions. 3. On or before May 15, 2023, Defendant shall file an Answer to Counts I and III in the Amended Complaint as narrowed by the adopted Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 19].
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Fort Pierce, Florida, this 1st day of May 2023.
AILEEN CANNON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
ce: counsel of record
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Marina Cooper-Houston v. S. Ry. Co., 37 F.3d 603 (11th Cir. 1994)
- Heath v. Jones, 863 F.2d 815 (11th Cir. 1989)