United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Orlando Division
G. BYRON, UNITED STATE DISTRICT JUDGE.
cause is before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion for
Default Judgment (Doc. 13), filed June 29, 2017. Magistrate
Judge Daniel C. Irick issued a Report and Recommendation
(Doc. 16), recommending that the motion be denied without
prejudice. Plaintiff timely filed an objection on December 6,
2017. (Doc. 17).
initiated this action on April 10, 2017, alleging violations
of Title III of the American with Disabilities Act
(“ADA”). Plaintiff complains that Defendant's
property is non-compliant with multiple requirements of the
i. Defendant fails to adhere to a policy, practice and
procedure to ensure that all goods, services and facilities
are readily accessible to and usable by the disabled.
ii. Defendant fails to maintain its features to ensure that
they are readily accessible and usable by the disabled.
iii. There is a lack of a compliant, accessible route
connecting the disabled parking spaces with all the goods,
services and facilities of the property, with excessive
slopes, abrupt changes in level, unsecured floor
mats/carpeting, and hazards on ground surfaces.
iv. There is an insufficient number of compliant parking
spaces and access aisles, with excessive slopes.
v. There are non-compliant restrooms, with improperly located
amenities, inaccessible commodes, lack of compliant grab
bars, missing grab bars, flush controls on wrong side,
inaccessible sinks, non-compliant doorways, improper door
hardware, insufficient door clearance, insufficient
maneuvering space, lack of required clear floor spaces, and
vi. There is a lack of compliant accessible seating and
vii. The transaction counter is inaccessible.
alleges that she has encountered these violations on the
subject property and, as a result, Defendant discriminated
against her based on her disability by “denying her
access to full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services,
facilities, privileges, advantages and/or accommodations of
its place of public accommodation or commercial
facility.” (Doc. 1, ¶ 17).
careful review of the Complaint, Magistrate Judge Irick
recommends Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment be
denied because the Complaint fails to state a claim upon
which relief can be granted. (Doc. 16). Plaintiff objects to