KEYVIEW LABS, INC.
v.
BARGER
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 adopts the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, denying the Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction.
Plaintiff KeyView Labs, Inc. filed a Motion for Preliminary Injunction. The Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation recommending the motio…
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 Report And Recommendation Review cases and more on FLexlaw
This matter is before the Court on consideration of United States Magistrate Judge Anthony E. Porcelli’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 52), filed on December 22, 2020, recommending that Plaintiff KeyView Labs, Inc.’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Doc. 7) be denied. All parties were furnished copies of the Report and Recommendation and were afforded the opportunity to file objections under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). No objections were filed. Considering the record and Judge Porcelli’s Report and Recommendation, the Court ACCEPTS and ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation and DENIES the Motion for Preliminary Injunction as set forth below. After conducting a careful and complete review of the findings and recommendations, a district judge may accept, reject, or modify a magistrate judge’s
Report and Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). If a party files a timely and specific objection to a finding of fact by the magistrate judge, the district court must conduct a de novo review with respect to that factual issue. Stokes v. Singletary, 952 F. 2d 1567, 1576
(11th Cir. 1992). The district court reviews legal conclusions de novo, even in the absence of an objection. See Cooper-Houston v. S. Ry. Co., 37 F. 3d 603, 604 (11th Cir. 1994); Ashworth v. Glades Cnty. Bd. of Cnty. Comm’rs, 379 F. Supp. 3d 1244, 1246 (M.D. Fla. 2019).
In the absence of any objection and after reviewing all legal conclusions de novo, the Court adopts the Report and Recommendation. Judge Porcelli held hearings on the Motion for Preliminary Injunction on October 14, 2020, and November 24, 2020, and
he permitted both parties to submit supplemental briefing and evidence on the Motion. The Report and Recommendation thoroughly addresses the claims for preliminary injunctive relief, and the Court agrees with Judge Porcelli’s detailed and well-reasoned
findings of fact and conclusions of law. Accordingly, it is now ORDERED: (1) The Report and Recommendation (Doc. 52) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED and is made a part of this Order for all purposes, including appellate
review. (2) KeyView Labs, Inc.’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Doc. 7) is
DENIED.
ORDERED in Tampa, Florida, on February 11, 2021.
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)
- Durham Eldon Stokes v. Singletary, 952 F.2d 1567 (11th Cir. 1992)
- Ashworth v. Glades Cnty. Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs, 379 F. Supp. 3d 1244 (M.D. Fla. 2019)