Opinion
21-cv-10092-GAYLES/TORRES
08-31-2022
LAURIE FACSINA and CHRISTOPHER KRASKA, Plaintiffs, v. ISLA MORADA, VILLAGE OF ISLANDS d/b/a PLANTATION YACHT HARBOR MARINA, and LISA WATTS, Defendants.
ORDER
DARRIN P. GAYLES UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint [ECF No. 4]. 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, non-dispositive matters, and for a Report and Recommendation on any dispositive matters. [ECF No. 14]. On August 16, 2022, Judge Torres issued his report recommending that the Motion to Dismiss be granted in part and denied in part (the “Report”). [ECF No. 30]. No objections have been filed.
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 objection is made are accorded de novo review, if those objections “pinpoint the specific findings that the party disagrees with.” United States v. Schultz, 565 F.3d 1353, 1360 (11th Cir. 2009); see also Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(3). Any portions of the report and recommendation to which no specific objection is made are reviewed only for clear error. Liberty Am. Ins. Grp., Inc. v. WestPoint Underwriters, L.L.C., 199 F.Supp.2d 1271, 1276 (M.D. Fla. 2001); accord Macort v. Prem, Inc., 208 Fed.Appx. 781, 784 (11th Cir. 2006).
In his Report, Judge Torres recommends that the Motion be granted with respect to Counts III (negligence) and VI (loss of consortium) and denied with respect to Counts I, II, IV, and V. The Court finds no clear error with Judge Torres's recommendation and agrees that the Motion should be granted in part and denied in part.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, after careful consideration, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
(1) Judge Torres's Report and Recommendation, [ECF No. 30], is ADOPTED in full;
(2) Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint [ECF No. 4] is GRANTED as to Counts III and VI and DENIED as to Counts I, II, IV, and V;
(3) Counts III and VI of the Second Amended Complaint are DISMISSED with prejudice.
DONE AND ORDERED.