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 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. (4) This case is CLOSED. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this 15th day of March 2026.

DARRIN P. GAYLES UNITED STATES DIST DGE