Opinion
22-14027-CIV-CANN/McCabe
10-14-2022
RICHARD A. MARINO, Plaintiff, v. PHAIDON INTERNATIONAL, INC. d/b/a Selby Jennings Defendant.
ORDER ACCEPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [ECF NO. 26]
AILEEN M. CANNON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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 Fed.Appx. 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. 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 Fed.Appx. at 784. Legal conclusions are reviewed de novo, even in the absence of an objection. See LeCroy v. McNeil, 397 Fed.Appx. 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.