AFFORDABLE AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY, INC.
v.
SHOWROOM INTERIORS LLC
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 defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings.
Defendants filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings, to which the Magistrate Judge issued a report recommending denial. No party filed objections …
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 Objections To Magistrate Judge'S Report cases and more on FLexlaw
_____________________________________/ ORDER ACCEPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [ECF No. 91]
THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation on Defendants’ Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (the “Report”) [ECF No. 91], filed on October 27, 2022.
On September 2, 2022, Defendants filed a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (the “Motion”) [ECF No. 78]. Following referral, Judge Reinhart issued a Report recommending that the Court deny the Motion [ECF No. 91 p. 8]. Objections to the Report were due on August 22, 2022 [ECF No. 121 p. 8]. No party filed objections, and the time to do so has expired [ECF No. 91 p. 8]. 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. 21-81777-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 correct. For the reasons set forth in the Report [ECF No. 91 pp. 4-8], it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: 1. The Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 91] is ACCEPTED.
2. The Motion [ECF No. 78] is DENIED.
3. As already ordered [ECF No. 100], Plaintiff is granted one final opportunity to amend its pleading consistent with the Report and Recommendation. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Fort Pierce, Florida this 14th day of November 2022.
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)