HENRY
v.
IANNONE
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 accepted the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, denied the defendants' motion to dismiss without prejudice, and ordered the defendants to respond to the amended complaint.
Plaintiff filed an initial complaint, and defendants moved to dismiss. A Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation denying the motion and al…
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 Standard cases and more on FLexlaw
On October 26, 2023, following referral, Magistrate Judge Ryon M. McCabe issued a Report recommending the Court deny Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss the Initial Complaint and permit Defendant an opportunity to respond to Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint [ECF No. 28 pp. 2–3]. Objections to the Report were due on November 15, 2023 [ECF No. 28 p. 3]. No party has filed objections, and the time to do so has expired.
LEGAL STANDARDS
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, 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).
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
Following review, the Court finds no clear error in the Report. Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: 1. The Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 28] is ACCEPTED. 2. Defendant’s Motion [ECF No. 24] is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE in accordance with this Order. 3. Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint [ECF No. 7] is deemed the operative complaint in this matter. 4. On or before December 1, 2023, Defendants shall respond to or answer Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint [ECF No. 7]. CASE NO. 23-14197-CIV-CANNON-McCabe
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Fort Pierce, Florida, this 21st day of November 2023.
AILEEN M. if
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
ce: counsel of record
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)