Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

vs. Case No. 3:10cv93/RS/EMT

0.24 OF AN ACRE OF LAND, MORE

OR LESS, SITUATED IN ESCAMBIA

COUNTY, FLORIDA, et al.,

Defendants.

_______________________________/

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff United States of America commenced this action by filing a complaint in

condemnation to condemn certain property located in Escambia County, Florida, under the power

of eminent domain. See 40 U.S.C. § 3114; 42 U.S.C. § 9604(j). The case was referred to the

undersigned for the issuance of all preliminary orders and any recommendations to the district court

regarding dispositive actions. See N.D. Fla. Loc. R. 72.2(E); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B)(C);

and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). 

Now pending is Defendant Escambia County Tax Collector ’s (“Tax Collector”) Motion for

Dismissal of the Escambia County Tax Collector, filed December 6, 2010 (Doc. 45). The Tax

Collector states in her motion that her counsel conferred with counsel for Plaintiff, and Plaintiff’s

counsel has no objection to the motion (Doc. 45 at 2). No other party filed a response in opposition

to the motion by fourteen-day deadline established by Local Rule 7.1(C). However, to ensure that

all parties had an opportunity to be heard,1

 the court issued an order on January 4, 2011, directing

1

 The certificate of service included in the Escambia County Tax Collector’s motion did not indicate that a copy

of it was served upon Veronica Hailey, a party proceeding pro se (see Doc. 45 at 3).
Page 2 of 3

any party who wished to oppose the motion to do so within fourteen days (Doc. 49). To date, no

party has responded in opposition to the motion.

The Tax Collector requests to be dismissed from this action pursuant to Rule 71.1(i) of the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (Doc. 45 at 1). Rule 71.1(i) provides, in relevant part:

(i) Dismissal of the Action or a Defendant.

. . . .

(2) Dismissing a Defendant. The court may at any time dismiss a defendant

who was unnecessarily or improperly joined. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 71.1(i)(2). The Tax Collector does not allege that she was unnecessarily or

improperly joined in this action; indeed, she acknowledges that at the time Plaintiff commenced this

action, she had an interest in the real property at issue, namely, a lien on property for taxes and

interest for the 2009 and 2010 calendar years (Doc. 45 at 1). She states, however, that as of the date

of filing her motion to dismiss, all taxes have been remitted to her such that she no longer has an

interest in this case and, therefore, requests that she be dismissed as a Defendant (id. at 2).

Based upon the Tax Collector’s assertion that she no longer has an interest in the real

property or this case, and in light of the fact that no other party, including Plaintiff, has objected to

the Tax Collector’s motion, the undersigned concludes that the motion should be granted.

Accordingly, it is respectfully RECOMMENDED:

That Defendant Escambia County Tax Collector ’s Motion for Dismissal of the Escambia

County Tax Collector (Doc. 45) be GRANTED, and the Escambia County Tax Collector be

DISMISSED from this action.

At Pensacola, Florida, this 27th day of January 2011.

/s/ Elizabeth M. Timothy 

ELIZABETH M. TIMOTHY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

NOTICE TO THE PARTIES

Case No. 3:10cv93/RS/EMT
Page 3 of 3

Objections to these proposed findings and recommendations may be filed within

fourteen (14) days after being served a copy thereof. Any different deadline that may appear

on the electronic docket is for the court’s internal use only, and does not control. A copy of

objections shall be served upon the magistrate judge and all other parties. Failure to object

may limit the scope of appellate review of factual findings. See 28 U.S.C. § 636; United States

v. Roberts, 858 F.2d 698, 701 (11th Cir. 1988).

Case No. 3:10cv93/RS/EMT