ICA INVESTMENTS CORPORATIONS
v.
LEXINGTON INSURANCE COMPANY
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, denying the Plaintiff's Motion to Strike Defendant's Affirmative Defenses.
Plaintiff filed a Motion to Strike Defendant's Affirmative Defenses. The Magistrate Judge recommended denying the motion. No objections were filed by …
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 Affirmative Defenses cases and more on FLexlaw
__________________________________/ ORDER ACCEPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [ECF No. 28]
THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation on Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Defendant’s Affirmative Defenses (the “Report”) [ECF No. 28], issued on February 8, 2023.
On January 3, 2023, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Strike Defendant’s Affirmative Defenses (the “Motion”) [ECF No. 17].
On February 8, 2023, following referral, Judge Reinhart issued a Report recommending that the Motion be denied [ECF No. 28 pp. 2, 10]. Objections to the Report were due on February 22, 2023 [ECF No. 28 p. 11]. No party filed objections, and the time to do so has expired [ECF No. 28 p. 11]. 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. 22-81845-CIV-CANNON/Reinhart
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 de novo review, the Court finds the Report to be well reasoned and correct. For the reasons set forth in the Report [ECF No. 28 pp. 7-10], it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: 1. The Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 28] is ACCEPTED. 2. The Motion to Strike [ECF No. 17] is DENIED. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Fort Pierce, Florida this 28th day of February
AILEE . CANNON
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)