TRISURA SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY
v.
SOUTH FLORIDA LODGING, 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 court accepted the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, denying Plaintiff's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings.
Plaintiff filed a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. The Magistrate Judge recommended denying the motion. No party filed objections to the Magistra…
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 Objections To Magistrate Judge'S Report cases and more on FLexlaw
THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation on Plaintiff's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (the “Report”) [ECF No. 71], issued on March 26, 2025. On January 24, 2025, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (the "Motion”) [ECF No. 42].¹ On March 26, 2025, following referral, Magistrate Judge Matthewman issued a Report recommending that the Motion be granted [ECF No. 71 p. 12]. Objections to the Report were due on April 9, 2025 [ECF No. 71 pp. 12–13], but to date, no party has filed objections or requested additional time to do so.
To challenge the findings and recommendations of a magistrate judge, a party must file specific written objections identifying the portions of the proposed findings and recommendation to which objection is made. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); Heath v. Jones, 863 F. 2d 815, 822 (11th Cir. 1989); Macort v. Prem, Inc., 208 F. App’x 781, 784 (11th Cir. 2006). A district court
CASE NO. 24-80582-CIV-CANNON/Matthewman
reviews de novo 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. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). To the extent a party fails to object to parts of the magistrate judge's report, the Court may accept the recommendation so long as there is no clear error on the face of the record. Macort, 208 F. App’x at 784. Legal conclusions are reviewed de novo, even in the absence of an objection. See LeCroy v. McNeil, 397 F. App’x 554, 556 (11th Cir. 2010); Cooper-Houston v. S. Ry. Co., 37 F. 3d 603, 604 (11th Cir. 1994).
Following de novo review, the Court finds the Report to be well reasoned and correct. For the reasons set forth in the Report [ECF No. 71 pp. 8–12], it is hereby
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
1. The Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 71] is ACCEPTED. 2. Plaintiff's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings [ECF No. 40] is DENIED. 3. The deadlines in the Court's Scheduling Order [ECF No. 39] and Order Scheduling Mediation [ECF No. 67] remain in effect.
ORDERED in Chambers at Fort Pierce, Florida this 15th day of April 2025.
AILEEN M. CANNON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
cc: counsel of record
[fn 1]: The Court previously dismissed without prejudice Plaintiff's unripe duty-to-indemnify claim, leaving only Plaintiff's duty-to-defend claim [ECF No. 29].
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)
- Heath v. Jones, 863 F.2d 815 (11th Cir. 1989)