SIEGAL
v.
HOLIDAY CVS, L.L.C.
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 a magistrate judge's recommendation and denied defendants' motion to dismiss Count II of plaintiff's complaint in this civil action. The court found no clear error in the magistrate judge's well-reasoned report recommending denial of the motion.
The court denied defendants' Amended Motion to Dismiss Count II of plaintiff's complaint, adopting the magistrate judge's recommendation that the motion be denied.
“To challenge the findings and recommendations of a magistrate judge, a party must file specific written objections identifying the portions of the proposed findings and recommendation to which objection is made.”
Establishes the procedural requirement for challenging magistrate judge reports under Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3)
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiff Siegal filed a complaint against Holiday CVS, L.L.C. On June 20, 2025, defendants filed an Amended Motion to Dismiss Count II of the complai…
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 Magistrate Judge'S Report And Recommendation Review cases and more on FLexlaw
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [ECF NO. 22]
THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon Magistrate Judge McCabe's Report and Recommendation on Defendants' Amended Motion to Dismiss Count II of Plaintiff's Complaint (the “Report”), issued on August 1, 2025 [ECF No. 22]. On June 20, 2025, Defendants filed an Amended Motion to Dismiss Count II of Plaintiff's Complaint (the “Motion”) [ECF No. 12]. On August 1, 2025, following referral, Judge McCabe issued a Report recommending that the Motion be denied [ECF Nos. 14, 22]. Objections to the Report were due on August 15, 2025 [ECF No. 22 p. 9]. No party has filed objections, and the time to do so has expired.
To challenge the findings and recommendations of a magistrate judge, a party must file specific written objections identifying the portions of the proposed findings and recommendation to which objection is made. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); Heath v. Jones, 863 F. 2d 815, 822 (11th Cir. 1989); Macort v. Prem, Inc., 208 F. App’x 781, 784 (11th Cir. 2006). A district court reviews de novo those portions of the report to which objection is made and 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)(1). To the extent a party fails to object to parts of the magistrate judge's report,
CASE NO. 25-80667-CIV-CANNON/McCabe
the Court may accept the recommendation so long as there is no clear error on the face of the record. Macort, 208 F. App’x at 784. Legal conclusions are reviewed de novo, even in the absence of an objection. See LeCroy v. McNeil, 397 F. App’x 554, 556 (11th Cir. 2010); Cooper-Houston v. S. Ry. Co., 37 F. 3d 603, 604 (11th Cir. 1994).
Following review, the Court finds the well-reasoned Report to contain no clear error of fact or law. Accordingly, for the reasons set forth in the Report [ECF No. 22], it is hereby
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
1. The Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 22] is ACCEPTED.
2. Defendants' Amended Motion to Dismiss Count II of Plaintiff's Complaint [ECF No. 12] is DENIED.
3. On or before September 5, 2025, Defendants shall answer Plaintiff's Complaint [ECF No. 1-1].
ORDERED in Chambers at Fort Pierce, Florida this 19th day of August 2025.
AILEEN M. CANNON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
cc: counsel of record
2
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Marina Cooper-Houston v. S. Ry. Co., 37 F.3d 603 (11th Cir. 1994)
- Heath v. Jones, 863 F.2d 815 (11th Cir. 1989)