SOSA CLARET
v.
TOSCANA PIZZA & GRILL, LLC
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 remanding a case to state court for lack of jurisdiction. The court denied the plaintiff's amended motion for default judgment and ordered the case closed in federal court.
The district court adopted and affirmed the magistrate judge's recommendation in its entirety. The amended motion for default judgment was denied, and the case was remanded to the 17th Judicial Circuit in Broward County, Florida.
“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 parties to object to magistrate judge recommendations with specificity
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiffs filed an amended motion for default judgment in federal court. The case was referred to a magistrate judge for a report and recommendation.…
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 MATTER was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Panayotta D. Augustin-Birch for a report and recommendation on Plaintiffs’ Amended Motion for Default Judgment (the "Motion”) [ECF No. 57]. [See ECF No. 55]. Judge Augustin-Birch has since issued a Report and Recommendation (the “R&R”), recommending that this case be remanded to the 17th Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County, Florida, for lack of jurisdiction. [ECF No. 61]. The parties did not file any objections to the R&R, and the time for doing so has passed. After careful review of the R&R, the filings, the applicable law, and the record, the Court ADOPTS and AFFIRMS the Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 61].
“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).
Upon this review, the Court finds no clear error; therefore, the Court adopts the R&R in its entirety.
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:
1. The Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 61] is ADOPTED and AFFIRMED. 2. Plaintiff's Amended Motion for Default Judgment [ECF No. 57] is DENIED. 3. The Clerk is DIRECTED to REMAND this case to the 17th Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County, Florida, and to CLOSE this case.
4. All pending motions, if any, are DENIED AS MOOT.
DONE AND ORDERED in the Southern District of Florida on April 22, 2025.
DAVID S. LEIBOWITZ
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE cc: counsel of record