Opinion
Case No. 6:02-cv-991-Orl-22DAB
January 6, 2004
ORDER
I. INTRODUCTION
This cause comes before the Court for consideration of the Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 28), filed July 28, 2003, to which the Plaintiff responded on October 6, 2003 (Doc. No. 38); and the Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 38), filed October 6, 2003, to which the Defendants responded (Doc. No. 50) on October 29, 2003. On December 18, 2003 United States Magistrate Judge David A. Baker issued a Report and Recommendation (RR) concerning the abovementioned motions (Doc. No. 57). In his memorandum opinion, Judge Baker recommends that the undersigned judge grant the Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 28), and deny the Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 38). The Plaintiff filed Objections (Doc. No. 62) to Judge Baker's RR on December 24, 2003. Having reviewed the RR and the objections thereto, the Court APPROVES and ADOPTS Judge Baker's well-reasoned recommendations (Doc. No. 57). As a result, the Plaintiffs Objections (Doc. No. 62) are OVERRULED.
II. LEGAL ANALYSIS
When a magistrate judge issues a report and recommendation, the district judge must make a de novo determination of the findings and/or recommendations to which any party objects. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) (2003). "This requires that the district judge `give fresh consideration to those issues to which specific objection has been made by a party.'" Lacy v. Apfel, 2000 U.S. Dist. Lexis 21437, *2-3 (M.D. Fla. Oct. 20, 2000) (quoting Jeffrey S. v. State Ed. of Educ., 896 F.2d 507, 512 (11th Cir. 1990)). "In the absence of specific objections, there is no requirement that a district judge review factual findings de novo." Lacy, 2000 U.S. Dist. Lexis 21437 at *3 (emphasis added) (internal citation omitted). However, regardless of whether objections are filed, a district judge must review a magistrate's legal conclusions de novo. See id. After reviewing a report and recommendation, objections, and responses thereto, the district judge may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge. See § 636(b)(1)(C).
Applying these principles, the Court finds the Plaintiffs Objections (Doc. No. 62) to Judge Baker's Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 57) without merit. The insurance policy at issue here covered mental health treatment administered by a "hospital" as that term is defined by the policy. Notwithstanding the unique circumstances surrounding the patient's treatment in this instance, the Renfrew Center is not a "hospital." Accordingly, there is no genuine issue of material fact with respect to the Principal's interpretation of the term "hospital."
III. CONCLUSION
Having conducted a de novo review of the facts and law presented in this matter it is ORDERED that:
1. The December 18, 2003 Report and Recommendation issued by Judge David A Baker (Doc. No. 57) is APPROVED and ADOPTED.
(a) The Defendants' July 28, 2003 Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 28) is GRANTED.
(b) The Plaintiffs October 6, 2003 Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 38) is DENIED.
2. The Plaintiffs December 24, 2003 Objections to Judge David A. Baker's Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 62) are OVERRULED.
3. The Clerk shall enter a final judgment providing that the Plaintiff, Francis T. O'Reardon, shall take nothing on his claims against the Defendants. The judgment shall further provide that the Defendants shall recover their costs arising from this action.
4. All other pending motions are DENIED as MOOT.
5. The clerk is directed to close the case. DONE and ORDERED.