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

CASE NO. 22-81364-CIV-CANNON/Reinhart RAFAEL FIS and MARIA FIS,

Plaintiffs, v.

NEWREZ, LLC,

Defendant. _______________________________/ ORDER ACCEPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [ECF No. 15] AND CLOSING CASE

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon Defendant NewRez, LLC’s Motion to Dismiss Complaint (the “Motion”) [ECF No. 8]. The Motion was referred to Magistrate Judge Bruce E. Reinhart for a report and recommendation [ECF No. 14]. In the Report, Judge Reinhart recommends dismissal of the case without prejudice for lack of Article III standing (the “Report”) [ECF No. 15]. Both parties have filed Notices of Non-Objection to the Report [ECF No. 16 (Defendant); ECF No. 17 (Plaintiffs)]. 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, the Court may accept the recommendation so long as there is no clear error on the face of the CASE NO. 22-81364-CIV-CANNON/Reinhart

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). The Court has conducted a de novo review of the Report and the record and is otherwise fully advised in the premises. See Williams v. McNeil,

(11th Cir. 2009) (citing

(b)(1)). Upon review, the Court finds the Report to be well reasoned and correct. The Court therefore agrees with the analysis in the Report and concludes that the Motion [ECF No. 8] should be GRANTED and the Complaint [ECF No. 1] DISMISSED for lack of Article III standing. CONCLUSION Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: 1. The Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 15] is ACCEPTED. 2. Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss [ECF No. 8] is GRANTED. 3. Plaintiffs’ Complaint [ECF No. 1] is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 4. The Clerk is directed to CLOSE this case. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Fort Pierce, Florida this 6th day of January 2023. ¢ “ag Af UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE ce: counsel of record