CHARLES
v.
UNDERHILL STAFFING HEALTH SERVICE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court adopted the Magistrate Judge's recommendation to grant the defendant's motion to dismiss with prejudice.
Plaintiff filed objections to a Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation that recommended dismissal of her case. The plaintiff also filed suppleme…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Motion To Strike cases and more on FLexlaw
THIS CAUSE is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 25; Report) entered by the Honorable Patricia D. Barksdale, United States Magistrate Judge, on January 28, 2021. In the Report, Judge Barksdale recommends that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative, for a More Definite Statement (Dkt. No. 13) be granted; Plaintiff’s motion to strike be denied; the case be dismissed with prejudice; and the case be closed. See Report at 51-52. Plaintiff filed objections to the Report. See Plaintiff Jane G. Charles’ Objection to Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 26; Objections). She also filed a document titled Motion Opposing Report and Recommendation and Exhibits to be Considered (Dkt. No. 27; Supplemental Objections), which the Court construes as supplemental objections. The Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). If no specific objections to findings of facts are filed, the district court is not required to conduct a de novo review of those findings. See Garvey v. Vaughn, 993 F. 2d 776, 779 n.9 (11th Cir. 1993); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). However, the district court must review legal conclusions de novo. See Cooper-Houston v. S. Ry. Co., 37 F. 3d 603, 604 (11th Cir. 1994); United States v. Rice, No. 2:07-mc-8-FtM- 29SPC, 2007 WL 1428615, at * 1 (M.D. Fla. May 14, 2007). Upon review of the Objections and the Supplemental Objections, it is apparent that Plaintiff continues to disagree with the Magistrate Judge’s analysis and recommended conclusion. However, she fails to identify any factual or legal error presented in the Report. As such, the Objections and Supplemental Objections are due to be overruled.
Having independently reviewed the file and for the reasons stated in the Magistrate Judge’s Report, the Court will accept and adopt the legal and factual conclusions recommended by the Magistrate Judge. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED:
1. Plaintiff Jane G. Charles’ Objection to Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 26) and Motion Opposing Report and Recommendation and Exhibits to be Considered (Dkt. No. 27) are OVERRULED.
2. The Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 25) is ADOPTED as the opinion of the Court. 3. Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative, for a More Definite Statement (Dkt. No. 13) is GRANTED. 4, Plaintiff's motion to strike the motion to dismiss contained within her
response (Dkt. No. 18) is DENIED.
5. This case is DISMISSED with prejudice.
6. The Clerk of the Court is directed to terminate any pending motions and close the file. DONE AND ORDERED at Jacksonville, Florida, this 8th day of March, 2021.
United States District Judge ja Copies to: Counsel of Record Jane G. Charles 7147 Old Kings Road 8S. Apt. K-81 Jacksonville, FL 32217