UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO.: 1:20-cv-24267-GAYLES/TORRES

DR. MELISSA SELINGER,

Plaintiff,

v.

KIMERA LABS INC., a Florida Corporation, DR. DUNCAN ROSS, and ALEXANDER JELINEK,

Defendants. _______________________________________/

ORDER

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on Chief Magistrate Judge Edwin G. Torres’ Report and Recommendation (the “Report”) [ECF No. 235] regarding Defendant Kimera Labs Inc’s Motion to Dismiss [ECF No. 119] and Defendant Alexander Jelinek’s Motion to Dismiss [ECF No. 120], (collectively, the “Motions”). The action was referred to Judge Torres, pursuant to

(b)(1)(B), for a ruling on all pretrial, non-dispositive matters, and for a Report and Recommendation on any dispositive matters. [ECF No. 163]. On January 3, 2022, Judge Torres issued his Report recommending that the Motions be denied. No party has filed objections to the Report. A district court may accept, reject, or modify a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation.

(b)(1). Those portions of the report and recommendation to which objections are made are accorded de novo review, if those objections “pinpoint the specific findings that the party disagrees with.” United States v. Schultz,

(11th Cir. 2009); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). Any portions of the report and recommendation to which no specific objections are made are reviewed only for clear error. Liberty Am. Ins. Grp., Inc. v. WestPoint Underwriters, L.L.C.,

(M.D. Fla. 2001); accord Macort v. Prem, Inc.,

(11th Cir. 2006). Having reviewed the Report, the Court finds no clear error and agrees with Judge Torres’ well-reasoned analysis and conclusion that Defendants’ Motions be denied. Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: 1. Chief Magistrate Judge Edwin G. Torres’ Report and Recommendation, [ECF No. 235], is AFFIRMED AND ADOPTED and incorporated into this Order by refer- ence. 2. Defendant Kimera Labs Inc’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Verified Complaint, [ECF No. 119], is DENIED. 3. Defendant Alexander Jelinek’s Motion to Dismiss Counts of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint and Incorporated Memorandum of Law, [ECF No. 120], is DENIED. 4. Defendants shall amend their answers to incorporate defenses to Counts XV and XVII of the Amended Complaint within fourteen (14) days of this Order. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this 25th day of January, 2022.

Df DARRIN P. GAYLES UNITED STATES DI ICT JUDGE