Opinion
Case No. 2:04-cv-552-FtM-33SPC.
March 1, 2006
OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on consideration of the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (Doc. # 60), filed January 23, 2006, recommending (1) that Defendant Food Drug Administration's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. # 38) should be GRANTED; (2) that Defendant-Intervenor Merck Co., Inc.'s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. # 40) should be GRANTED; and (3) that Plaintiffs Dr. and Mrs. Robert Sharkey's Motion for Summary Judgment or in the Alternative for Discovery (Doc. # 44) should be DENIED. Plaintiffs filed their Objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (Doc. # 61) on January 31, 2006. Defendant-Intervenor Merck Co., Inc. filed its Opposition to Plaintiffs' Objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (Doc. # 62) on February 16, 2006. Defendant Food and Drug Administration also filed a Memorandum in Opposition (Doc. # 63) on February 17, 2006.
After conducting a careful and complete review of the findings and recommendations, a district judge may accept, reject or modify the magistrate judge's report and recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Williams v. Wainwright, 681 F.2d 732 (11th Cir. 1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1112 (1983). In the absence of specific objections, there is no requirement that a district judge review factual findings de novo, Garvey v. Vaughn, 993 F.2d 776, 779 n. 9 (11th Cir. 1993), and the court may accept, reject or modify, in whole or in part, the findings and recommendations. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The district judge reviews legal conclusions de novo, even in the absence of an objection. See Cooper-Houston v. Southern Ry. Co., 37 F.3d 603, 604 (11th Cir. 1994); Castro Bobadilla v. Reno, 826 F. Supp. 1428, 1431-32 (S.D. Fla. 1993), aff'd, 28 F.3d 116 (11th Cir. 1994) (Table).
After conducting a careful and complete review of the findings, conclusions and recommendations, and giving de novo review to matters of law and those matters to which objections were filed, the Court accepts the factual findings and legal conclusions of the magistrate judge. The Court therefore accepts the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Sheri Polster Chappell.
Accordingly, it is now
ORDERED:
1. The Report and Recommendation is hereby accepted and adopted.
2. Defendant Food and Drug Administration's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. # 38) is GRANTED.
3. Defendant-Intervenor Merck Co., Inc.'s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. # 40) is GRANTED.
4. Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment or in the Alternative for Discovery (Doc. # 44) is DENIED.
5. The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment for Defendant and Defendant-Intervenor and close the file.
DONE and ORDERED.