Clear Spring Property and Casuality Company v. Bluewater Adventures of Sarasota ( 2022 )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: 0:22-cv-60554-DPG CLEAR SPRING PROPERTY AND CASUALITY COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. BLUEWATER ADVENTURES OF SARASOTA, Defendant. _______________________________/ ORDER THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on Magistrate Judge Jared M. Strauss’ Report and Recommendation (the “Report”), [ECF No. 58], regarding Defendant Bluewater Adventures of Sarasota’s Motion to Dismiss (the “Motion”), [ECF No. 10]. The matter was referred to Magistrate Judge Strauss, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), for a ruling on all pre-trial, non-dispositive matters and a report and recommendation on all dispositive matters. [ECF No. 47]. On December 6, 2022, Judge Strauss issued his report recommending that Defendant’s Motion be granted in part and denied in part. [ECF No. 58]. Plaintiff filed timely objections to the Report. [ECF No. 63]. For the reasons that follow, the Court affirms and adopts the Report. A district court may accept, reject, or modify a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Those portions of the report and recommendation to which objection is made are accorded de novo review, if those objections “pinpoint the specific findings that the party disagrees with.” United States v. Schultz, 565 F.3d 1353, 1360 (11th Cir. 2009); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). Any portions of the report and recommendation to which no specific objection is made are reviewed only for clear error. Liberty Am. Ins. Grp., Inc. v. WestPoint Underwriters, L.L.C., 199 F. Supp. 2d 1271, 1276 (M.D. Fla. 2001); accord Macort v. Prem, Inc., 208 F. App’x 781, 784 (11th Cir. 2006). Having conducted a de novo review of the record, including the Motion, the Report, and Plaintiff's objections, the Court agrees with Judge Strauss’ well-reasoned analysis and conclusion that Defendant’s Motion should be GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: (1) Magistrate Judge Strauss’ Report and Recommendation, [ECF No. 58], is AF- FIRMED AND ADOPTED and incorporated into this Order by reference. (2) Defendant’s Motion, [ECF No. 10], is GRANTED as to Count III. (3) Defendant’s Motion, [ECF No. 10], is DENIED as to Counts I, II, and IV. (4) Count III of the Complaint, [ECF No. 1], is DISMISSED without prejudice. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this 29th day of December, 2022. DARRIN P. GAYLES UNITED STATES DISTRACT JUDGE