DONOVAN
v.
FAY SERVICING 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 Donovan v. Fay Servicing LLC, the District Court for the Southern District of Florida adopted a magistrate judge's recommendation and granted defendants' motion to dismiss the original complaint, but permitted plaintiff to file an amended complaint with defendants required to respond by October 18, 2024.
The Court granted defendants' motion to dismiss the original complaint and adopted the magistrate judge's report in full. The Court also granted plaintiff's unopposed motion to amend the complaint, allowing plaintiff to file an amended complaint to which defendants must respond by October 18, 2024.
[1] A district court reviews portions of a magistrate judge's report and recommendation to which no specific objection is made for clear error.
[2] A district court may accept, reject, or modify a magistrate judge's report and recommendation.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“A district court may accept, reject, or modify a magistrate judge's report and recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).”
Establishes the standard of review applicable to magistrate judge recommendations in this case.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiff Donovan filed a complaint against Fay Servicing LLC. Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint. The matter was referred to Magistrate Judge …
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 Motion To Dismiss Complaint cases and more on FLexlaw
THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Complaint (the “Motion”). [ECF No. 26]. The action was referred to Magistrate Judge Panayotta Augustin-Birch, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), for a ruling on all pretrial, non-dispositive matters, and for a Report and Recommendation on any dispositive matters. [ECF No. 30]. On August 23, 2024, Judge Augustin-Birch issued her report recommending that the Motion be granted (the “Report”). [ECF No. 36]. No party has objected to the Report. On September 18, 2024, Plaintiff filed an Unopposed Motion to Amend the Complaint. [ECF No. 40].¹
A district court may accept, reject, or modify a magistrate judge's report and recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Those portions of the report and recommendation to which objection is made are accorded de novo review, if those objections “pinpoint the specific findings that the party disagrees with.” United States v. Schultz, 565 F. 3d 1353, 1360 (11th Cir. 2009); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). Any portions of the report and recommendation to which no specific 1 On September 4, 2024, Plaintiff, without leave of Court, filed an Amended Complaint. [ECF No. 37].
objection is made are reviewed only for clear error. Liberty Am. Ins. Grp., Inc. v. WestPoint Underwriters, L.L.C., 199 F. Supp. 2d 1271, 1276 (M.D. Fla. 2001); accord Macort v. Prem, Inc., 208 F. App'x 781, 784 (11th Cir. 2006).
The Court has reviewed the Report for clear error and agrees with Judge Augustin-Birch's well-reasoned analysis and findings. Accordingly, it is
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
(1) Judge Augustin Birch's Report and Recommendation, [ECF No. 36], is ADOPTED in full;
(2) Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Complaint, [ECF No. 26], is GRANTED, and Plaintiff's Complaint is DISMISSED.
(3) Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion to Amend the Complaint, [ECF No. 40], is granted. Defendants shall respond to Plaintiff's Amended Complaint, [ECF No. 37], on or before October 18, 2024..
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this 19th day of September, 2024.
DARRIN P. GAYLES
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
2
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- United States v. Schultz, 565 F.3d 1353 (11th Cir. 2009)
- Liberty Am. Ins. Grp., Inc. v. Westpoint Underwriters, L.L.C., 2001 WL 1850837 (M.D. Fla. 2001)