STANNARD
v.
GOLDORO DEVELOPMENTS INC
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 adopted the magistrate judge's report and recommendation granting plaintiff's motion to dismiss defendant's counterclaim. No objections were filed by either party, so the court reviewed the recommendation for clear error and found none.
The district court adopted the magistrate judge's report and recommendation in its entirety, granting plaintiff's motion to dismiss the counterclaim without prejudice.
“In order to challenge the findings and recommendations of the magistrate judge, a party must file written objections which shall specifically identify the portions of the proposed findings and recommendation to which objection is made and the specific basis for objection.”
Establishes the procedural requirement for objecting to a magistrate judge's report and recommendation.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiff Stannard filed a motion to dismiss defendant Goldoro Developments, Inc.'s counterclaim. The magistrate judge issued a report and recommendat…
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 De Novo Determination cases and more on FLexlaw
THIS CAUSE is before the Court on United States Magistrate Judge Ryon M. McCabe's Report and Recommendation on Plaintiff's Motion to Dismiss Defendant Goldoro Developments, Inc's ("Defendant”) Counterclaim [ECF No. 30]. [ECF No. 41 (the “R&R")]. Judge McCabe recommends granting the Motion to Dismiss Defendant's Counterclaim [ECF No. 30]. [ECF No. 41 at 1]. The parties did not file any objections to the R&R, and the time to do so has passed. After careful review of the filings, the applicable law, and the record, the Court adopts Judge McCabe's R&R in its entirety.
“In order to challenge the findings and recommendations of the magistrate judge, a party must file written objections which shall specifically identify the portions of the proposed findings and recommendation to which objection is made and the specific basis for objection.” Macort v. Prem, Inc., 208 F. App'x 781, 783 (11th Cir. 2006) (cleaned up). The objections must also present “supporting legal authority.” S.D. Fla. L. Mag. J.R. 4(b). Once a district court receives “objections meeting the specificity requirement set out above,” it must “make a de novo determination of 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.” Macort, 208 F. App'x at 783–84 (cleaned up). To the extent a party fails to object to parts of the magistrate judge's report, those portions are reviewed for clear error. Id. at 784 (cleaned up).
The parties have not submitted any objections to Judge McCabe's R&R, and the time to do so has passed. As such, the Court has reviewed the R&R for clear error only. Upon this review, the Court finds not only no clear error but also notes that Judge McCabe's R&R is thorough, cogent, and compelling. The Court adopts the R&R in its entirety.
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:
1. Magistrate Judge McCabe's R&R [ECF No. 41] is AFFIRMED AND ADOPTED. 2. Plaintiff's Motion to Dismiss Defendant's Counterclaim [ECF No. 30] is GRANTED. 3. Defendant's Counterclaim [ECF No. 28 at 11–20] is DISMISSED without prejudice.
DONE AND ORDERED in the Southern District of Florida on August 25, 2025.
DAVID S. LEIBOWITZ
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE cc: counsel of record