HAMMAD
v.
LOWE'S HOME CENTERS 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.
In this employment-related federal case, the District Court accepted a Magistrate Judge's recommendation and denied Plaintiff Hammad's motion to remand and amend the case style. The Court dismissed three individual defendants (Plummer, McNulty, and Cruz) from the case, leaving only Lowe's Home Centers LLC as the remaining defendant.
The Court accepted the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation and denied Plaintiff's Motion to Remand and to Amend Case Style. The three individual defendants (Plummer, McNulty, and Cruz) were dismissed from the case, leaving only Lowe's Home Centers LLC as the remaining defendant.
“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.”
Establishes the procedural requirement for challenging a magistrate judge's recommendations under Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3)
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiff Hammad filed suit against Lowe's Home Centers LLC and three individual defendants (Dennis Plummer, David McNulty, and Mario Cruz). Plaintiff…
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 Magistrate Judge Maynard's Report and Recommendation (the “Report”), issued on November 21, 2024 [ECF No. 33]. The Report recommends that Plaintiff's Second “Motion to Remand and to Amend Case Style” (the “Motion”) [ECF No. 26] be denied. Both Plaintiff and Defendants filed Notices of No Objections to the Report [ECF Nos. 34–35]. Upon review of the Report and the Motion, the Report [ECF No. 33] is ACCEPTED, and the Motion [ECF No. 26] is DENIED for the reasons stated in the Report.
***
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 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,
CASE NO. 24-14200-CIV-CANNON/Maynard
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 review, the Court finds no clear error on the face of the Report and no errors of law. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
1. The Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 33] is ACCEPTED. 2. The Motion to Remand and to Amend Case Style [ECF No. 26] is DENIED for the reasons stated in the Report. 3. In light of this Order, Defendants Dennis Plummer, David McNulty, and Mario Cruz (the “Individual Defendants”) are DISMISSED as Defendants in this case, assuming they were properly added in the first instance. 4. The Individual Defendants' Motion to Dismiss [ECF No. 31] is DENIED AS MOOT. The Clerk is directed to TERMINATE Dennis Plummer, David McNulty, and Mario Cruz as Defendants in this Action. 5. This case remains active between Plaintiff and Defendant Lowe's Home Centers,
LLC.
6. Any future amendment to the Amended Complaint must come in the form of a properly filed motion under Rule 15.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Fort Pierce, Florida, this 9th day of December 2024.
AILEEN M. CANNON
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)
- Heath v. Jones, 863 F.2d 815 (11th Cir. 1989)