BRIGHTHOUSE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY
v.
FENELON
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 a magistrate judge's report and recommendation granting defendant Fenelon's motion for summary judgment based on judicial notice. The court found no error in the magistrate's analysis and granted the motion.
The district court adopted the magistrate judge's report and recommendation and granted defendant Fenelon's motion for summary judgment. The court found no error in the magistrate's analysis.
“After conducting a review of the findings and recommendations, a district judge may accept, reject, or modify a magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation.”
Establishes the standard of review for district court consideration of magistrate judge reports under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThis case involves a dispute between Brighthouse Life Insurance Company and Francoise Fenelon. The matter was referred to a magistrate judge for a rep…
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 Clear Error Review cases and more on FLexlaw
THIS MATTER was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Shaniek Mills Maynard for a report and recommendation (“R&R”) on Defendant Francoise Fenelon's Request for Judicial Notice in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 59] (the “Motion”). [See ECF No. 77]. Judge Maynard has since issued a PAPERLESS R&R, recommending the Motion be GRANTED. [ECF No. 79]. The parties have filed Notices of Non-Objection to the R&R [ECF Nos. 80 and 81]. Accordingly, upon due consideration of the R&R, the Motion, the parties' papers, the applicable law, and the relevant portions of the record, the Court ADOPTS and AFFIRMS the Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 79].
LEGAL STANDARD
After conducting a 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
1
files a timely and specific objection to a finding of fact by a 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). To the extent a party fails to object to parts of the magistrate judge's report, those portions are reviewed for clear error. Macort v. Prem. Inc., 208 F. App’x 781, 784 (11th Cir. 2006) (quoting Johnson v. Zema Sys. Corp., 170 F. 3d 734, 739 (7th Cir. 1999)).
CONCLUSION
Upon review, the Court finds no error. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED:
1. The Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 79] is ADOPTED and made a part of this Order for all purposes.
2. The Motion [ECF No. 59] is GRANTED.
DONE AND ORDERED in the Southern District of Florida on May 27, 2025.
DAVID S. LEIBOWITZ
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
cc: counsel of record
2
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)
- In re Mad Toyz III, LLC (M.D. Fla. 2026)