Opinion
22-14206-CIV-CANN/McCabe
10-18-2022
SASB CORPORATION, individually and as the representative of a class of a similarly situated persons, Plaintiff, v. MEDICAL SECURITY CARD COMPANY, LLC, Defendant.
ORDER ACCEPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
AILEEN M. CANNON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon Defendant Medical Security Card Company, LLC's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Class Action Complaint (the “Motion”) [ECF No. 14]. The Motion was referred to Magistrate Judge Ryon M. McCabe for a report and recommendation [ECF No. 21]. On September 16, 2022, Judge McCabe issued a report recommending that Defendant's Motion be denied (the “Report”) [ECF No. 23]. Defendant filed Objections to the Report [ECF No. 24], and Plaintiff filed a Response to Defendant's Objections [ECF No. 28].
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).
The Court has conducted a de novo review of the Report [ECF No. 23], Defendant's Objections [ECF No. 24], Plaintiff's Response to Defendant's Objections [ECF No. 28], and the full record in this case. Upon review of the foregoing materials, including the authority and analysis provided in Defendant's Objections, the Court finds Judge McCabe's Report to be well-reasoned and correct. Defendant's Motion to Dismiss is therefore DENIED for the reasons set forth in the Report.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
1. The Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 23] is ACCEPTED.
2. Defendant's Motion to Dismiss [ECF No. 14] is DENIED.
3. Defendant shall file an Answer to Plaintiff's Complaint on or before November 1, 2022.
DONE AND ORDERED