UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA WEST PALM BEACH DIVISION

CASE NO. 21-81777-CIV-CANNON/Reinhart

AFFORDABLE AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY, INC.,

Plaintiff, v.

TILLINGHAST HOLDINGS, LLC and LARRY A. ROSS,

Defendants. _____________________________________/ ORDER ACCEPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [ECF No. 91]

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation on Defendants’ Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (the “Report”) [ECF No. 91], filed on October 27, 2022. On September 2, 2022, Defendants filed a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (the “Motion”) [ECF No. 78]. Following referral, Judge Reinhart issued a Report recommending that the Court deny the Motion [ECF No. 91 p. 8]. Objections to the Report were due on August 22, 2022 [ECF No. 121 p. 8]. No party filed objections, and the time to do so has expired [ECF No. 91 p. 8]. 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,

(11th Cir. 1989); Macort v. Prem, Inc.,

(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.

(b)(1). To the extent a party fails to object to parts of the magistrate judge’s report, CASE NO. 21-81777-CIV-CANNON/Reinhart

the Court may accept the recommendation so long as there is no clear error on the face of the record. Macort,

. Legal conclusions are reviewed de novo, even in the absence of an objection. See LeCroy v. McNeil,

, 556 (11th Cir. 2010); Cooper-Houston v. S. Ry. Co.,

(11th Cir. 1994). Following de novo review, the Court finds the Report to be correct. For the reasons set forth in the Report [ECF No. 91 pp. 4-8], it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: 1. The Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 91] is ACCEPTED. 2. The Motion [ECF No. 78] is DENIED. 3. As already ordered [ECF No. 100], Plaintiff is granted one final opportunity to amend its pleading consistent with the Report and Recommendation. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Fort Pierce, Florida this 14th day of November 2022.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE ce: counsel of record