THI MEDICAL, S.A.C.
v.
FILMORE MANAGEMENT TRADING, 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.
The Court adopts the magistrate judge's recommendation to grant summary judgment for the defendants on specific counts, despite objections to factual findings.
Plaintiff sued defendants. A magistrate judge recommended granting defendants' motion for summary judgment on several counts. Defendants objected to s…
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 Review cases and more on FLexlaw
THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on Defendants Filmore and Ast’s Motion for Final Summary Judgment (the “Motion”). [ECF No. 95]. The action was referred to Chief Magistrate Judge Edwin Torres, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), for a ruling on all pretrial, nondispositive matters, and for a Report and Recommendation on any dispositive matters. [ECF No. 45].
On August 23, 2023, Judge Torres issued his report recommending that the Motion be granted and judgment be entered in favor of Defendants Filmore Management Trading LLC (“Filmore”) and Pedro R. Ast (“Ast”) (collectively referred to as “Defendants”) as to Counts I, II, IV, VI, IX, and XI of the operative Complaint. (the “Report”). [ECF No. 99].1 Defendants filed limited objections to some of the factual findings in the Report but do not object to the Report’s recommendation. [ECF No. 100]. 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
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). In his Report, Judge Torres recommends that the Motion be granted and that judgment as a matter of law be entered in Defendants’ favor as to Counts I, II, IV, VI, IX, and XI of the operative Complaint.2 Defendants agree with Judge Torres’s recommendation but object to some of his factual findings because they are either unsupported by the record or typographical errors. Having conducted a de novo review of the record, the Court will sustain the objections.
However, the Court finds that the factual findings at issue are not material to the Report’s findings as a matter of law. As a result, the Court adopts the Report’s recommendation that judgment be entered in favor of Defendants but does not adopt the specific factual findings objected to by Defendants. See
[ECF No. 100].
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, after careful consideration, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: (1) Judge Torres’s Report and Recommendation, [ECF No. 78], is ADOPTED in part; (2) Defendants’ Motion for Final Summary Judgment [ECF No. 95] is GRANTED;
Df
DARRIN P. GAYLES
UNITED STATES DI ICT JUDGE
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)