Jain v. Nexgen Memantine, Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION JITENDRA JAIN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Case No. 8:20-cv-2263-VMC-JSS NEXGEN MEMANTINE, INC., et al., Defendants. _______________________________/ ORDER This matter is before the Court on consideration of United States Magistrate Judge Julie S. Sneed’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. # 338), filed on December 9, 2022, recommending that Plaintiffs’ Motion for Default Judgment against Defendant Nexgen Memantine, Inc. (Doc. # 325) be denied without prejudice.

As of this date, no party has filed an objection to the Report and Recommendation, and the time for the parties to file such objections has elapsed.

Discussion 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). 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 recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). If a party files a timely and specific objection to a finding of fact by the magistrate judge, the district court must conduct a de novo review with respect to that factual issue. Stokes v. Singletary, 952 F.2d 1567, 1576 (11th Cir. 1992). 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).

After conducting a careful and complete review of the findings, conclusions and recommendations, and giving de novo review to matters of law, the Court accepts the factual findings and legal conclusion of the Magistrate Judge.

Plaintiffs’ Motion for Default Judgment against Defendant Nexgen Memantine, Inc. (Doc. # 325) is denied without prejudice. Plaintiffs may file a renewed motion for default judgment, if appropriate, after the trial of Plaintiffs’ claims against Defendant Mahendiran.

Accordingly, it is now ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED: (1) The Report and Recommendation (Doc. # 338) is ADOPTED. (2) Plaintiffs’ Motion for Default Judgment against Defendant Nexgen Memantine, Inc. (Doc. # 325) is DENIED without prejudice.

DONE and ORDERED in Chambers in Tampa, Florida, this 28th day of December, 2022.

Eigen Maca ee VIRGINIA M. HERNANDEZ*COVINGTON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE