SUSAN VICKNAIR AND LINDA UNGERLEIDER
v.
HARTFORD INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE MIDWEST
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 District Court accepted a Magistrate Judge's recommendation and granted Hartford Insurance Company's motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' complaint for lack of standing, dismissing without prejudice and permitting one final opportunity to replead by February 9, 2026.
The Court accepted the Magistrate Judge's report and granted Hartford's motion to dismiss. Plaintiffs' complaint was dismissed without prejudice due to standing deficiencies, with one final opportunity to file an amended complaint by February 9, 2026.
[1] A party filing objections to a magistrate judge's report and recommendation must specifically identify the findings objected to.
[2] Frivolous, conclusive, or general objections to a magistrate judge's report and recommendation need not be considered by the district court.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Parties filing objections to a magistrate's report and recommendation must specifically identify those findings objected to, and frivvolous, conclusive, or general objections need not be considered by the district court.”
Establishes the standard for valid objections to magistrate reports; supports the Court's rejection of Plaintiffs' conclusory objection.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiffs Susan Vicknair and Linda Ungerleider filed a complaint against Hartford Insurance Company of the Midwest. The Magistrate Judge identified s…
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 Magistrate Judge'S Report And Recommendation cases and more on FLexlaw
THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon Magistrate Judge Ryon M. McCabe's Report (the "Report") [ECF No. 19], which recommends granting Defendants' Amended Motion to Dismiss (the “Motion”) but allowing Plaintiffs to replead their claims via an Amended Complaint [ECF No. 11]. The Court has reviewed the Report, Plaintiffs' Objections [ECF No. 23], Defendant's Response to Plaintiffs' Objections [ECF No. 26], Defendant's Motion and related briefing [ECF Nos. 11, 13, 14], Plaintiffs' Complaint [ECF No. 1-1], and the full record. Upon review, the Report is ACCEPTED; Defendant's Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED; and Plaintiffs Complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE with one final opportunity to replead as indicated below.
DISCUSSION
Plaintiffs' one-sentence “objection” fails to sufficiently object to the Report [see ECF No. 23]. All it says is that “Plaintiffs hereby give notice that they object to the Report and Recommendation [DE 19],” without any factual or legal support for any purported objection. This
CASE NO. 25-81155-CIV-CANNON
is clearly insufficient to raise a valid objection to a report and recommendation. Indeed, “[p]arties filing objections to a magistrate's report and recommendation must specifically identify those findings objected to,” and “[f]rivolous, conclusive, or general objections need not be considered by the district court.” Marsden v. Moore, 847 F. 2d 1536, 1548 (11th Cir. 1988). As such—and finding no clear error on the face of the record—the Court accepts the Report. See, e.g., Hernandez v. United States, 771 F. Supp. 3d 1306, 1312 (S.D. Fla. 2025) (“If a party fails to object to parts of the report, the Court may accept the recommendation so long as there is no clear error on the face of the record." (citing Macort v. Prem, Inc., 208 F. App'x 781, 784 (11th Cir. 2006)).
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
1. The Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 19] is ACCEPTED. 2. Defendant's Amended Motion to Dismiss [ECF No. 11] is GRANTED. 3. Plaintiffs' Complaint [ECF No. 1-1] is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 4. Plaintiffs are afforded one final opportunity to replead their claim, but any such Amended Complaint is due no later than February 9, 2026, and must account for the standing deficiencies identified in the Report and in Defendants' Motion. 5. Failure to replead by the above deadline will result in an order closing this case without further notice.
ORDERED in Chambers at Fort Pierce, Florida, this 29th day of January 2026.
AILEEN M. CANNON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
cc: counsel of record