From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Spinelli v. Capital One Bank

United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Tampa Division
Nov 18, 2008
Case No. 8:08-cv-132-T-33EAJ (M.D. Fla. Nov. 18, 2008)

Summary

noting that “[w]here a party fails to show such diligence, good cause for a modification cannot be found.”

Summary of this case from Aranda v. Hoffman-Laroche, Inc. (In re Accutane Prods. Liab. Litig.)

Opinion

Case No. 8:08-cv-132-T-33EAJ.

November 18, 2008


ORDER


This matter comes before the Court upon consideration of the report and recommendation of Elizabeth A. Jenkins, United States Magistrate Judge (Doc. # 31), which was filed on October 28, 2008, recommending that Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File Third Amended Class Action Complaint (Doc. # 27) be denied. No objections have been filed, and the time to do so has expired.

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, 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. S. 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).

The Court has conducted an independent examination of the file and upon due consideration of the report and recommendation, the Court accepts the report and recommendation of Elizabeth A. Jenkins, United States Magistrate Judge.

Accordingly, it is hereby

ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED: ADOPTED, CONFIRMED, APPROVED DENIED.

(1) The report and recommendation (Doc. # 31) is and in all respects and is made a part of this Order for all purposes, including appellate review. (2) Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File Third Amended Class Action Complaint (Doc. # 27) is DONE and ORDERED in Chambers in Tampa, Florida.


Summaries of

Spinelli v. Capital One Bank

United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Tampa Division
Nov 18, 2008
Case No. 8:08-cv-132-T-33EAJ (M.D. Fla. Nov. 18, 2008)

noting that “[w]here a party fails to show such diligence, good cause for a modification cannot be found.”

Summary of this case from Aranda v. Hoffman-Laroche, Inc. (In re Accutane Prods. Liab. Litig.)
Case details for

Spinelli v. Capital One Bank

Case Details

Full title:KENNETH SPINELLI, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CAPITAL ONE BANK and CAPITAL ONE…

Court:United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Tampa Division

Date published: Nov 18, 2008

Citations

Case No. 8:08-cv-132-T-33EAJ (M.D. Fla. Nov. 18, 2008)

Citing Cases

Vampire Family Brands, LLC v. Dracula's Legacy, LLC

See, e.g., Spinelli v. Capital One Bank, No. 8:08-cv-132-T-33EAJ, 2008 WL 4937828, at *1 (M.D. Fla. …

Aranda v. Hoffman-Laroche, Inc. (In re Accutane Prods. Liab. Litig.)

Accordingly, their motion for an extension of the expert deadlines is denied. See Smith v. Trans–Siberian…