Demarest v. United States Of America

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO.: 4:25-cv-10001-GAYLES/SANCHEZ
STEPHEN DEMAREST,
Plaintiff,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant.
________________________________/
ORDER
THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment
(the “Defendant’s Motion”), [ECF No. 27], and Plaintiff’s Motion and Memorandum in Support
of Summary Judgment (the “Plaintiff’s Motion”), [ECF No. 29], (collectively the “Motions”). The
action was referred to Magistrate Judge Eduardo I. Sanchez, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B),
for a ruling on all pretrial, non-dispositive matters and for a Report and Recommendation on any
dispositive matters. [ECF No. 31]. On February 24, 2026, Judge Sanchez issued his report
recommending that Defendant’s Motion be granted and Plaintiff’s Motion be denied (the
“Report”). [ECF No. 33]. Plaintiff filed objections to the Report. [ECF No. 34].
A 	district 	court 	may 	accept, 	reject, 	or 	modify 	a 	magistrate 	judge’s 	report 	and
recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(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, 565 F.3d 1353, 1360 (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
Case 4:25-cv-10001-DPG Document 35 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/15/2026 Page 1 of 3

2
Underwriters, L.L.C., 199 F. Supp. 2d 1271, 1276 (M.D. Fla. 2001); accord Macort v. Prem, Inc.,
208 F. App’x 781, 784 (11th Cir. 2006).
In this action, Plaintiff seeks review under the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”) of a
Customs and Border Patrol (“CBP”) Ruling Letter (the “Ruling Letter”). The Ruling Letter held
that a round-trip voyage by a foreign-built vessel in which passengers embark and disembark at
the same point in the United States violates the Passenger Vessel Services Act (“PVSA”), 46
U.S.C. § 55103, unless the vessel travels into international waters. In his Report, Judge Sanchez
found that CBP correctly interpreted the PVSA in the Ruling Letter. Plaintiff raises several
objections to the Report, the majority of which rehash arguments he raised in his Motion.
The Court has conducted a de novo review of the Motions and the record and agrees with
Judge Sanchez’s well-reasoned findings and recommendation that Defendant’s Motion should be
granted and Plaintiff’s Motion should be denied.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
(1) 	Magistrate Judge Sanchez’s Report and Recommendation, [ECF No. 33], is
ADOPTED in full.
(2) 	Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, [ECF No. 27], is GRANTED, and
Plaintiff’s Motion and Memorandum in Support of Summary Judgment, [ECF No.
29], is DENIED.
(3) 	In accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58, the Court will enter a
separate final judgment.
Case 4:25-cv-10001-DPG Document 35 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/15/2026 Page 2 of 3

3
(4) 	This case is CLOSED.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this 15th day of March 2026.
________________________________
DARRIN P. GAYLES
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 4:25-cv-10001-DPG Document 35 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/15/2026 Page 3 of 3