Santiago Manuel A. v. Jamison et al, No. 2:2013cv00781 - Document 230 (M.D. Fla. 2015)

Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER denying 179 Motion requesting leave to file amended complaint and to file supplemental pleading; overruling 209 Objections; adopting and incorporating 205 Report and Recommendations. Signed by Judge John E. Steele on 11/18/2015. (RKR)

Download PDF
Santiago Manuel A. v. Jamison et al Doc. 230 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FORT MYERS DIVISION SANTIAGO MANUEL A., individually and on behalf of SA, Plaintiff, v. Case No: 2:13-cv-781-FtM-29CM DALE JAMISON, BRIAN BOTTS, Dr., School Principal (Edison Collegiate High School), EDISON STATE COLLEGE, Lee Campus, and SCHOOL BOARD OF LEE COUNTY, Defendants. OPINION AND ORDER This matter is before the Court on consideration of the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. #205), filed October 30, 2015, recommending that plaintiff's Motion Requesting Leave to File Amended Complaint and to File Supplemental Pleading (Doc. #179) be denied. Plaintiff filed Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendations (Doc. #209) on November 5, 2015. After conducting a careful and complete review of the findings and recommendations, a district judge may accept, reject or modify the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); United States v. Powell, 628 F.3d 1254, 1256 (11th Cir. 2010). A district judge “shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or Dockets.Justia.com recommendations 636(b)(1)(C). to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § See also United States v. Farias-Gonzalez, 556 F.3d 1181, 1184 n.1 (11th Cir. 2009). This requires that the district judge “give fresh consideration to those issues to which specific objection has been made by a party.” Jeffrey S. v. State Bd. of Educ. of Ga., 896 F.2d 507, 512 (11th Cir. 1990) (quoting H.R. 1609, 94th Cong., § 2 (1976)). The district judge reviews legal conclusions de novo, even in the absence of an objection. See Cooper-Houston v. Southern Ry. Co., 37 F.3d 603, 604 (11th Cir. 1994). Plaintiff objects because discovery should be reopened, and because defendants have not shown prejudice since they failed to produce discovery. Plaintiff further objects that he did not file a proposed Third Amended Complaint for review because he was waiting for leave to be granted. After a careful and complete review of the findings and recommendations, as well as the record in this case, the Court accepts the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. The motion was untimely when filed on August 26, 2015, as the deadline to amend pleadings had passed 1, and because this case is currently set for the January 2016 trial term. 2 The Court has repeatedly addressed plaintiff’s requests to 1 The deadline to amend pleadings expired on July 14, 2014. (Doc. #45.) 2 The Court notes that plaintiff filed a Motion to Continue - 2 - compel and for sanctions, see Doc. #180, and plaintiff’s request to reopen discovery has no bearing on the motion to amend. After a de novo review, the Court finds that the Motion failed to explain the basis to amend or how plaintiff would amend the pleading if provided the opportunity to amend, even if plaintiff had attached a proposed document for review. The Court will overrule the objections. Accordingly, it is now ORDERED: 1. The Report and Recommendation (Doc. #205) is hereby ACCEPTED and ADOPTED and the findings incorporated herein. 2. Plaintiff's Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendations (Doc. #209) are overruled. 3. Plaintiff’s Motion Requesting Leave to File Amended Complaint and to File Supplemental Pleading (Doc. #179) is DENIED. DONE and ORDERED at Fort Myers, Florida, this of November, 2015. Copies: All Parties of Record Trial (Doc. #219) on November 6, 2015. - 3 - 18th day

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.