Am. Fed’n of Gov’t Emps. Loc. 527 v. ICE, No. 21-21992, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 47184 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 18, 2024) (Moore, J.)

Am. Fed’n of Gov’t Emps. Loc. 527 v. ICE, No. 21-21992, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 47184 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 18, 2024) (Moore, J.)

Re:  Request for current Office of Professional Responsibility Investigative Guidebook

Disposition:  Adopting magistrate judge’s report and recommendation; granting defendant’s renewed motion for summary judgment; denying plaintiff’s renewed cross-motion for summary judgment

• Litigation Considerations, “Policy or Practice” Claims; Litigation Considerations, Vaughn Index/Declaration; Exemption 7(E):  The court notes that “[n]o objections to the R&R were filed, and the time to do so has passed.”  “The matter is now ripe for review.”  “[W]hen a party has failed to object to the magistrate judge’s findings, ‘the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.’”  “As set forth in the [report and recommendation (“R&R”)], [the] Magistrate Judge . . .  recommends that Defendant’s Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment . . . be granted and Plaintiff’s Renewed Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment . . . be denied because:  (1) Plaintiff has failed to establish that Defendant has engaged in a pattern and practice of unreasonable delay . . . ; (2) the evidence advanced by Defendant to support its sequential productions and withholding therefrom does not contain contradictions that defeat the Court’s ability to find in Defendant’s favor . . . ; (3) Defendant’s Declaration and Vaughn Index are not impermissibly vague . . . ; and (4) Defendant has adequately supported its bases for withholding portions of the Office of Professional Responsibility Investigative Guidebook under 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7)(E), [E]xemption 7(E), . . . .”  “After careful review of [the] Magistrate Judge[’s] . . . thorough and persuasive R&R, [the] Court agrees.”