MARTIN

v.

E. C. PUBLICATIONS, INC.

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on Magistrate Judge Lauren Fleischer Louis’ Report and Recommendation (the “Report”) [ECF No. 113] regarding Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (the “Motion”) [ECF No. 40].

On January 29, 2020, United States District Judge Federico Moreno granted the Motion. [ECF No. 58].

On appeal, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed Judge Moreno’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Defendants on Plaintiff’s claims involving pre-2015 and foreign publications, vacated the court’s grant of summary judgment on Plaintiff’s timely-filed claims involving post-2015 non-foreign publications, and remanded for further proceedings. [ECF No. 73 at 9]. The case was subsequently reassigned to the undersigned judge. [ECF No. 74].

On November 10, 2021, the Court referred the Motion to Judge Louis, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), “for a ruling consistent with the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals’ directive on remand.” [ECF No. 99].

On February 16, 2022, Judge Louis issued her Report recommending that the Court grant Defendants’ Motion. Plaintiff timely filed objections, [ECF No. 114], to which Defendants responded, [ECF No. 115]. A district court may accept, reject, or modify a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Those portions of the report and recommendation to which objections are made 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 objections are 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). Having conducted a de novo review of the record, the Court agrees with Judge Louis’ wellreasoned analysis and conclusion that Defendants’ Motion should be granted.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: 1. Magistrate Judge Lauren Fleischer Louis’ Report and Recommendation, [ECF No. 113], is AFFIRMED AND ADOPTED and incorporated into this Order by reference.!

2. Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment, [ECF No. 40], is GRANTED. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this 27th day of September, 2022.

IN P. GAYLES

UNITED STATES DIST JUDGE

' The Report indicates that Plaintiffs husband, Don Martin, died on January 1, 2000, see [ECF No. 113 at 3], as established by the record in support of Defendants’ Statement of Material Facts, see [ECF No. 41 at 1] (quoting Plaintiff's deposition testimony); see also [ECF No. 51 at 7 1] (indicating the date as January 6, 2000, without any citation to evidence). In Plaintiff’s objections to the Report, she asserts her husband died on January 6, 2000, attaching as an exhibit his death certificate. See [ECF Nos. 114 at 5, 114-1 at 4]. The death certificate is a more reliable indicator than Plaintiff’s memory at her deposition. Even so, the precise date of Mr. Martin’s death does not impact the Court’s analysis.