Dione Morris v. Sheehan Buick Pontiac GMC, Inc.

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
_____________
No. 12-12208
_____________
D. C. Docket No. 9:10-cv-80796-WJZ
DIONE MORRIS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
SHEEHAN BUICK PONTIAC GMC, INC.,
Defendant-Appellee.
______________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
______________
(April 18, 2013)
Before DUBINA, Chief Judge, BARKETT and FAY, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 12-12208 Date Filed: 04/18/2013 Page: 1 of 3

-- 1 of 3 --

2
Plaintiff/Appellant Dione Morris (“Morris”) appeals the district court’s grant
of summary judgment in favor of Defendant/Appellee Sheehan Buick Pontiac
GMC, Inc., (“Sheehan”) and the denial of Morris’s motion for partial summary
judgment.
The issues presented on appeal are:
(1) Whether the district court properly granted summary judgment as to
Morris’s claims predicated on violations of Florida’s Motor Vehicle
Retail Sales Finance Act, FLA. STAT . §§ 520.07(2), 520.13, and
520.995(1)(c)?
(2) Whether the district court properly granted summary judgment as to
Morris’s Equal Credit Opportunity Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1691, claim?
(3) Whether the district court properly granted summary judgment as to
Morris’s Florida Uniform Commercial Code, F LA. STAT . § 679.601,
claim?
(4) Whether the district court properly granted summary judgment as to
Morris’s constitutional challenge?
“We review de novo a district court’s rulings on cross-motions for summary
judgment, and the facts are viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving
party on each motion.” Chavez v. Mercantil Commercebank, N.A., 701 F.3d 896,
899 (11th Cir. 2012) (citations omitted).
Case: 12-12208 Date Filed: 04/18/2013 Page: 2 of 3

-- 2 of 3 --

3
After reviewing the record, reading the parties’ briefs and having the benefit
of oral argument, we affirm the district court’s order denying Morris’s motion for
partial summary judgment and granting Sheehan’s motion for summary judgment
based on the thorough and well-reasoned Report and Recommendation of the
Magistrate Judge1 filed on March 10, 2012.
AFFIRMED.
1 This case was referred to a Magistrate Judge for a Report and Recommendation pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 636 et seq.
Case: 12-12208 Date Filed: 04/18/2013 Page: 3 of 3

-- 3 of 3 --