BERNTHEIZEL
v.
SAFECO INSURANCE COMPANY OF ILLINOIS
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 insurance dispute case, the District Court for the Southern District of Florida accepted a Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation denying Defendant SAFECO Insurance Company of Illinois's Motion for Sanctions without prejudice. The court found the magistrate judge's reasoning well-founded and directed that any renewed sanctions motion be filed within fourteen days after entry of final judgment.
The court accepted the magistrate judge's recommendation and denied the defendant's Motion for Sanctions without prejudice. The court found the magistrate judge's reasoning to be well-reasoned and correct, and directed that any renewed motion for sanctions be filed no later than fourteen days after entry of final judgment.
[1] A district court reviews de novo those portions of a magistrate judge's report to which specific objections are made.
[2] A district court may accept a magistrate judge's report and recommendation without objection if there is no clear error on the face of the record.
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCatherine Berntheizel filed suit against SAFECO Insurance Company of Illinois. On December 7, 2023, the defendant filed a Motion for Sanctions against…
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
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [ECF No. 127]
THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation on Defendant's Motion for Sanctions (the “Report”) [ECF No. 127], filed on February 2, 2024. On December 7, 2023, Defendant filed a Motion for Sanctions (the “Motion") [ECF No. 101]. On February 2, 2024, following referral, Judge McCabe issued a Report recommending that the Motion be denied without prejudice [ECF No. 127 pp. 1–2]. Objections to the Report were due on February 16, 2024 [ECF No. 127 pp. 1–2]. Defendant did not object to the Report, and Plaintiff filed a Notice of No objection to the Report [ECF No. 129].
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. 21-14482-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 de novo review, the Court finds the Report to be well reasoned and correct. For the reasons set forth in the Report [ECF No. 127 pp. 1–2], it is hereby
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
1. The Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 127] is ACCEPTED. 2. The Motion [ECF No. 101] is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 3. Any renewed motion for sanctions shall be filed no later than fourteen days after entry of final judgment.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Fort Pierce, Florida this 28th day of February 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)