MARINO
v.
PHAIDON INTERNATIONAL, INC.
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 accepted the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, granting in part and denying in part the defendant's motion to dismiss the amended complaint.
Plaintiff filed an amended complaint. Defendant moved to dismiss. The Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation, which was not objected to b…
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
d/b/a Selby Jennings,
Defendant. ___________________________________________/ ORDER ACCEPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [ECF No. 26]
THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation on Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint (the “Report”) [ECF No. 26], filed on August 16, 2022.
On June 22, 2022, Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint (the “Motion”) [ECF No. 22].
On August 16, 2022, following referral, Judge McCabe issued a Report recommending that the Motion be granted in part and denied in part [ECF No. 26 pp. 1, 14–15]. Objections to the Report were due on August 30, 2022 [ECF No. 26 p. 15]. No party filed objections, and the time to do so has expired [ECF No. 26 p. 15]. 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. 22-14027-CIV-CANNON/McCabe
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 de novo review, the Court finds the Report to be well reasoned and correct. For the reasons set forth in the Report [ECF No. 26 pp. 4-14], it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: 1. The Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 26] is ACCEPTED.
2. The Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint [ECF No. 22] is GRANTED IN
PART AND DENIED IN PART.
3. Count I of the Amended Complaint [ECF No. 21] is DISMISSED WITH
PREJUDICE.
4. Count II of the Amended Complaint [ECF No. 21] is DISMISSED to the extent Count II alleges misrepresentations made to third parties including AQR; however, the remainder of Count II may proceed.
5. Count III of the Amended Complaint [ECF No. 21] may proceed.
6. On or before October 28, 2022, Defendant shall file an answer to the Amended Complaint consistent with this Order [ECF No. 21]. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Fort Pierce, Florida this 14th day of October 2022. , AILEEN(M. CANNON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
ce: 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)