GASKIN
v.
HEALTHTRUST WORKFORCE SOLUTIONS
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 for the Southern District of Florida adopted the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, denying Defendant's Motion for Adverse Inference. With no timely objections filed by the parties, the court reviewed the R&R for clear error and found none.
The District Court affirmed and adopted the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation in its entirety, denying Defendant's Motion for Adverse Inference.
[1] A district court must conduct a de novo review of portions of a magistrate judge's report to which specific objections are made.
[2] When no objections are filed to a magistrate judge's report and recommendation, the district court reviews the report for clear error.
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“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 standard for objecting to magistrate judge recommendations
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDefendant HealthTrust Workforce Solutions filed a Motion for Adverse Inference. The Magistrate Judge reviewed this motion and recommended denial. No p…
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 Panayotta Augustin- Birch's Report and Recommendation on Defendant's Motion for Adverse Inference [ECF No. 50] (the “R&R”). [ECF No. 66]. Judge Augustin-Birch recommends denying Defendant's Motion for Adverse Inference. [ECF No. 66]. 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 Augustin-Birch'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 Augustin-Birch'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 Augustin-Birch'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 Augustin-Birch's R&R [ECF No. 66] is AFFIRMED AND
ADOPTED.
2. Defendants' Motion for Adverse Inference [ECF No. 50] is DENIED.
DONE AND ORDERED in the Southern District of Florida on March 28, 2025.
cc: counsel of record
DAVID S. LEIBOWITZ
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
2