PAUL DANIELS
v.
MARTIN CROTTY, ET AL.
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 District Court for the Southern District of Florida adopted the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation granting Defendants' Motion to Dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. The court found that Plaintiff failed to establish personal jurisdiction over the defendants.
The Court adopted the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation in full and granted Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, finding lack of personal jurisdiction over the defendants. The case is closed.
[1] A district court may accept, reject, or modify a magistrate judge's report and recommendation.
[2] Objections to a magistrate judge's report and recommendation are afforded de novo review when they pinpoint the specific findings with which a party disagrees.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“A district court may accept, reject, or modify a magistrate judge's report and recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).”
Establishes the standard of review for district court consideration of magistrate judge reports
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiff Paul Daniels filed an Amended Complaint against Defendants Martin Crotty and others. On August 15, 2025, Defendants filed a Joint Motion to …
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 Clear Error Review cases and more on FLexlaw
THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Edwin G. Torres (the “Report”). [ECF No. 194].
On August 15, 2025, Defendants filed a Joint Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint (the “Motion”). [ECF No. 122].
On November 17, 2025, Judge Torres issued his Report recommending the Motion be granted for lack of personal jurisdiction. [ECF No. 194]. Plaintiff timely objected to the Report. [ECF Nos. 205, 206, 216]. Defendants then filed a response to the objections. [ECF Nos. 210, 211]. A district court may accept, reject, or modify a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The objected portions of the report and recommendation 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). After conducting a de novo review of the record, the Court agrees with Judge Torres’ well-reasoned analysis and conclusion that the Motion should be granted.
CONCLUSION
Therefore, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: (1) The Report and Recommendation, [ECF No. 194], is ADOPTED in full. (2) Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss [ECF No. 122] is GRANTED. This case is CLOSED. All pending motions are DENIED as moot. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this 17th day of December, 2025.
DARRIN P. GAYLES
UNITED STATES D CT JUDGE
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- United States v. Schultz, 565 F.3d 1353 (11th Cir. 2009)
- Liberty Am. Ins. Grp., Inc. v. Westpoint Underwriters, L.L.C., 2001 WL 1850837 (M.D. Fla. 2001)