People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, Inc. v. United States Department of Agriculture
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, Inc. v. United States Department of Agriculture
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA MIAMI DIVISION
CASE NO.: 16-cv-24793-GAYLES/DAMIAN
PEOPLE FOR THE ETHICAL TREAMENT OF ANIMALS, INC., et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, et al.,
Defendants,
and
FESTIVAL FUN PARKS, LLC d/b/a MIAMI SEAQUARIUM,
Defendants-Intervenor.
___________________________________/
ORDER
THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on Defendants, United States Department of Agriculture (“USDA”) and Elizabeth Goldentyer, in her official capacity as the Director of Animal Welfare Operations for the Eastern Region of the USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (“collectively, “Defendants”), Motion to Dismiss Complaint as Moot (the “Motion”). [ECF No. 167]. The action was referred to Magistrate Judge Melissa Damian, pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), for a ruling on all pretrial, non-dispositive matters, and for a Report and Recommendation on any dispositive matters. [ECF No. 174]. On June 13, 2023, Judge Damian issued her report recommending that the Motion be granted (the “Report”). [ECF No. 175]. No objections have been filed. 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). In her Report, Judge Damian recommends that the Motion be granted, and this action be dismissed as moot. The Court finds no clear error with Judge Damian’s recommendation and agrees that the Complaint should be dismissed as moot. CONCLUSION Accordingly, after careful consideration, itis ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: (1) Judge Damian’s Report and Recommendation, [ECF No. 175], is ADOPTED in full; (2) Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Complaint as Moot, [ECF No. 167], is GRANTED; (3) This action is DISMISSED as MOOT. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this 29th day of June, 2023.
af DL UNITED STATES DI ICT JUDGE
Reference
- Status
- Unknown