DOUGHERTY
v.
TOTSCH
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 a Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation granting defendants' motion to dismiss plaintiff's amended complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The case was dismissed without prejudice.
The district court accepted the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation and granted defendants' motion to dismiss. The amended complaint was dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
“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 parties to object 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 intelligencePlaintiff filed an amended complaint against defendants. Defendants filed a joint motion to dismiss on July 5, 2024. Magistrate Judge McCabe issued a …
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 Ryon M. McCabe's Report and Recommendation on Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint (the "Report") [ECF No. 103], issued on August 1, 2024. On July 5, 2024, Defendants filed a Joint Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint (the “Motion”) [ECF No. 92]. Following referral, Judge McCabe issued a Report recommending that the Motion be granted and that the Plaintiff's Amended Complaint be dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction [ECF No. 103 pp. 1, 4]. All parties have filed notices indicating no objection to the Report [ECF Nos. 104, 105].
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.
CASE NO. 23-14195-CIV-CANNON
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 review, the Court finds no error of fact or law, clear or otherwise, in the wellreasoned Report. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
1. The Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 103] is ACCEPTED. 2. Defendants' Motion to Dismiss [ECF No. 92] is GRANTED. 3. Plaintiff's Amended Complaint [ECF No. 91] is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 4. The Clerk shall CLOSE this case. Any scheduled hearings are CANCELED, any pending motions are DENIED AS MOOT, and all deadlines are TERMINATED.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Fort Pierce, Florida, this 12th day of August 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)