UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA MIAMI DIVISION

CASE NO. 20-24482-CIV-GAYLES/TORRES

VITALY VLADIMIROVICH BOGOMAZOV,

Plaintiff,

v.

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, et al.,

Defendants. ___________________________________/

ORDER

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on Defendants’, the United States of America, the United States Department of Homeland Security, the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (collectively “Defendants”), Renewed Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction and Request for Evidentiary Hearing (the “Motion”). [ECF No. 63]. The action was referred to Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Becerra, pursuant to

(b)(1)(B), for a ruling on all pre-trial, non-dispositive matters and a report and recommendation on all dispositive matters. [ECF No. 60]. On August 23, 2023, Judge Becerra issued her report recommending that the Motion be granted, and Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint, [ECF No. 55], be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. (the “Report”). [ECF No. 75]. No party has objected to the Report. A district court may accept, reject, or modify a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation.

(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,

(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.,

(M.D. Fla. 2001); accord Macort v. Prem, Inc.,

(11th Cir. 2006). The Court has reviewed the Report for clear error and agrees with Judge Becerra’s well- reasoned analysis and recommendation. Accordingly, after careful consideration, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: (1) Judge Becerra’s Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 75] is ADOPTED in FULL; (2) Defendants’ Renewed Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction, [ECF No. 63], is GRANTED. Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint, [ECF No. 55], is DISMISSED without prejudice. (3) This case is CLOSED for administrative purposes and all pending motions are denied as moot. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this 8th day of September, 2023.

af DARRIN P. GAYLES UNITED STATES DIS T JUDGE