DeMartino v. Empire Holding and Investments, LLC ( 2024 )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FORT PIERCE DIVISION CASE NO. 22-14301-CIV-CANNON/McCabe SARABETH DEMARTINO, Plaintiff, v. EMPIRE HOLDINGS AND INVESTMENTS, LLC and JUAN CARLOS MARRERO, Defendants. _______________________________/ ORDER ACCEPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [ECF No. 111] THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation on Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions (the “Report”), filed on January 26, 2024 [ECF No. 111]. On October 11, 2023, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Sanctions (the “Motion”) [ECF No. 66]. On January 26, 2024, following referral, Judge McCabe issued a Report recommending that the Motion be denied [ECF No. 111 pp. 1, 14]. Objections to the Report were due on February 9, 2024 [ECF No. 111 p. 14]. On January 31, 2024, Plaintiff filed a Notice of No Objections [ECF No. 117]. Defendants have not filed objections, and the time to do so has expired [ECF No. 111 p. 14]. 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 F. App’x 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. CASE NO. 22-14301-CIV-CANNON/McCabe 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 F. App’x at 784. Legal conclusions are reviewed de novo, even in the absence of an objection. See LeCroy v. McNeil, 397 F. App’x 554, 556 (11th Cir. 2010); Cooper-Houston v. S. Ry. Co., 37 F.3d 603, 604 (11th Cir. 1994). Following review, the Court finds the Report to be well reasoned and correct and to contain no clear error of fact or law. For the reasons set forth in the Report [ECF No. 111 pp. 8-14], it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: 1. The Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 111] is ACCEPTED. 2. Plaintiff's Motion for Sanctions [ECF No. 66] is DENIED. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Fort Pierce, Florida this 21st day of February 2024. } AILEEN M. CANNON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE ce: counsel of record