ROSARIO
v.
TRANSUNION 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 Fair Credit Reporting Act case, the District Court adopted a Magistrate Judge's recommendation denying Defendant TransUnion LLC's motion to dismiss Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint. The Court found no clear errors in the magistrate judge's reasoning and ordered the defendant to file its answer.
The Court denied TransUnion's Motion to Dismiss and adopted the Magistrate Judge's recommendation denying the motion. The Court found no clear errors of law or legal errors in the magistrate judge's well-reasoned report.
[1] A district court reviews de novo those portions of a magistrate judge's report to which a party objects.
[2] A district court may accept a magistrate judge's recommendation on portions of a report to which no objection is made, provided there is no clear error on the face of the…
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“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 magistrate judge reports
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiff Rosario filed a Second Amended Complaint against TransUnion LLC. Defendant TransUnion filed a Motion to Dismiss on August 30, 2024. 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 Clear Error Standard cases and more on FLexlaw
THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon Magistrate Judge McCabe's Report and Recommendation on Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (the “Report”) [ECF No. 28], filed on October 25, 2024. On August 30, 2024, Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint (the “Motion”) [ECF No. 23]. On October 25, 2024, following referral, Magistrate Judge McCabe issued a Report recommending that the Motion be denied [ECF No. 28]. Objections to the Report were due on November 8, 2024 [ECF No. 28 p. 8]. No party filed objections, and the time to do so has expired.
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. 24-80860-CIV-CANNON/McCabe
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 errors of law or legal errors in the well-reasoned Report. Accordingly, for the reasons set forth in the Report [ECF No. 28], it is hereby
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
1. The Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 28] is ACCEPTED. 2. The Motion [ECF No. 23] is DENIED. 3. On or before December 9, 2024, Defendant shall file its answer to Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint [ECF No. 22].
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Fort Pierce, Florida this 19th day of November 2024.
AILEEN M. CANNON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
cc: counsel of record
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)