Kilmer v. Howmedica Osteonics Corp.

Full title: DEBRA KILMER, Plaintiff, v. HOWMEDICA OSTEONICS CORP., Defendant.

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

Date published: Oct 8, 2015

Case No. 5:14-cv-456-Oc-34PRL (M.D. Fla. Oct. 8, 2015)

Opinion

Case No. 5:14-cv-456-Oc-34PRL

10-08-2015

DEBRA KILMER, Plaintiff, v. HOWMEDICA OSTEONICS CORP., Defendant.

MARCIA MORALES HOWARD United States District Judge

ORDER

THIS CAUSE is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 43; Report), entered by the Honorable Philip R. Lammens, United States Magistrate Judge, on September 2, 2015. In the Report, Magistrate Judge Lammens recommends that Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. No. 36) be denied as to Counts I, II, III, and IV, and granted as to Count VI. See Report at 11. The parties have 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 Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 43) of Magistrate Judge Lammens is ADOPTED as the opinion of the Court.

2. Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. No. 36) is GRANTED, in part, and DENIED, in part.

A. The Motion is GRANTED to the extent that Count VI of the Second Amended Complaint is DISMISSED.

B. Otherwise, the Motion is DENIED.

3. Defendant shall respond to the Second Amended Complaint in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

DONE and ORDERED in Chambers, this 8th day of October, 2015.

/s/_________

MARCIA MORALES HOWARD

United States District Judge
ja Copies to: Counsel of Record