Williams v. Vapor Rising, Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION GLENDA WILLIAMS, Plaintiff, v. Case No. 8:20-cv-1215-TPB-TGW VAPOR RISING, INC., a Florida corporation, and JOSEPH JOHN SCHAFFER, an individual, Defendants. / ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION This matter is before the Court on the report and recommendation of Thomas G. Wilson, United States Magistrate Judge, entered on February 24, 2022. (Doc.

112). Judge Wilson recommends that the Court: (1) deny Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Doc. 76), (2) deny Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (Doc. 78), and (3) deny Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions for spoliation of evidence. (Doc. 65). Plaintiff and Defendants filed objections to the report and recommendation. (Docs. 115; 116).

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); Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983); Williams v. Wainwright, 681 F.2d 732 (11th Cir. 1982). A district court must “make a de novo determination of those portions of the [report and recommendation] to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).

When no objection is filed, a court reviews the report and recommendation for clear error. Macort v. Prem, Inc., 208 F. App’x 781, 784 (11th Cir. 2006); Nettles v. Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404, 409 (5th Cir. 1982).

After careful consideration of the record, including Judge Wilson’s report and recommendation, the Court overrules the parties’ objections and adopts the report and recommendation. The Court agrees with Judge Wilson’s well-reasoned findings and conclusions. Consequently, the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment are denied, and Plaintiff's motion for spoliation sanctions is denied.

It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED: (1) Judge Wilson’s report and recommendation (Doc. 112) is AFFIRMED and ADOPTED and INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE into this Order for all purposes, including appellate review. (2) Plaintiff's motion for spoliation sanctions (Doc. 65) is DENIED. (3) Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Doc. 76) is DENIED. (4) Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment (Doc. 78) is DENIED.

DONE and ORDERED in Chambers in Tampa, Florida, this 29th day of March, 2022.

a A LG fy Yh UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Page 2 of 2