UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA MIAMI DIVISION

CASE NO.: 21-cv-10092-GAYLES/TORRES

LAURIE FACSINA and CHRISTOPHER KRASKA,

Plaintiffs,

v.

ISLA MORADA, VILLAGE OF ISLANDS d/b/a PLANTATION YACHT HARBOR MARINA, and LISA WATTS,

Defendants.

___________________________________/

ORDER

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint [ECF No. 4]. The action was referred to Chief Magistrate Judge Edwin 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. 14]. On August 16, 2022, Judge Torres issued his report recommending that the Motion to Dismiss be granted in part and denied in part (the “Report”). [ECF No. 30]. No objections have been filed. 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 objection is 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 objection is 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). In his Report, Judge Torres recommends that the Motion be granted with respect to Counts III (negligence) and VI (loss of consortium) and denied with respect to Counts I, I], IV, and V. The Court finds no clear error with Judge Torres’s recommendation and agrees that the Motion should be granted in part and denied in part. CONCLUSION Accordingly, after careful consideration, itis ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: (1) Judge Torres’s Report and Recommendation, [ECF No. 30], is ADOPTED in full; (2) Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint [ECF No. 4] is GRANTED as to Counts III and VI and DENIED as to Counts I, II, IV, and V; (3) Counts III and VI of the Second Amended Complaint are DISMISSED with prejudice. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this 31st day of August, 2022.

of DARRIN P. GAYLES UNITED STATES DI ICT JUDGE