From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Dunkel v. Hedman

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JACKSONVILLE DIVISION
Sep 12, 2016
Case No.: 3:15-cv-948-J-34PDB (M.D. Fla. Sep. 12, 2016)

Opinion

Case No.: 3:15-cv-948-J-34PDB

09-12-2016

PAMELA DUNKEL, Plaintiff, v. KEITH HEDMAN, Defendant.

Copies to: Counsel of Record Pro Se Plaintiff


ORDER

THIS CAUSE is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 38; Report), entered by the Honorable Patricia D. Barksdale, United States Magistrate Judge, on August 17, 2016. In the Report, Magistrate Judge Barksdale recommends that Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint (Dkt. No. 19) be granted, all claims be dismissed, Plaintiff's Motion to Amend the Complaint (Dkt. No. 34) be denied, and the Clerk be directed to enter judgment and close the file. See Report at 35. Plaintiff has failed to file objections to the Report, and the time for doing so has now passed.

The Court "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). If no specific objections to findings of facts are filed, the district court is not required to conduct a de novo review of those findings. See Garvey v. Vaughn, 993 F.2d 776, 779 n.9 (11th Cir. 1993); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). However, the district court must review legal conclusions de novo. See Cooper-Houston v. Southern Ry. Co., 37 F.3d 603, 604 (11th Cir. 1994); United States v. Rice, No. 2:07-mc-8-FtM-29SPC, 2007 WL 1428615, at * 1 (M.D. Fla. May 14, 2007).

Upon independent review of the file and for the reasons stated in the Magistrate Judge's Report, the Court will accept and adopt the legal and factual conclusions recommended by the Magistrate Judge. Accordingly, it is hereby

ORDERED:

1. The Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 38) is ADOPTED.

2. Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint (Dkt. No. 19) is GRANTED.

3. Plaintiff's Motion to Amend the Complaint (Dkt. No. 34) is DENIED.

4. This case is DISMISSED.

5. The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment dismissing the case, terminate any pending motions or deadlines as moot, and close the file.

DONE AND ORDERED at Jacksonville, Florida, this 12th day of September, 2016.

/s/_________

MARCIA MORALES HOWARD

United States District Judge ja Copies to: Counsel of Record
Pro Se Plaintiff


Summaries of

Dunkel v. Hedman

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JACKSONVILLE DIVISION
Sep 12, 2016
Case No.: 3:15-cv-948-J-34PDB (M.D. Fla. Sep. 12, 2016)
Case details for

Dunkel v. Hedman

Case Details

Full title:PAMELA DUNKEL, Plaintiff, v. KEITH HEDMAN, Defendant.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JACKSONVILLE DIVISION

Date published: Sep 12, 2016

Citations

Case No.: 3:15-cv-948-J-34PDB (M.D. Fla. Sep. 12, 2016)

Citing Cases

Solar Eclipse Inv. Fund III v. T-Mobile U.S.

Under Florida law, the elements of fraudulent concealment are identical to those of fraudulent…

Coq v. NCL (Bahamas), Ltd.

Dunkel v. Hedman, No. 3:15-CV-948-J-34PDB, 2016 WL 4870502, at *13 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 17, 2016), report and…