UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FORT PIERCE DIVISION

CASE NO. 22-14398-CIV-CANNON/McCabe RENEE HELMKE,

Plaintiff, v.

CITY OF PORT ST. LUCIE,

Defendant. _______________________________/ ORDER ACCEPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [ECF No. 19]

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation on Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint (the “Report”) [ECF No. 19], issued on April 11, 2023. On February 3, 2023, Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint (the “Motion”) [ECF No. 11]. On April 11, 2023, following referral, Judge McCabe issued a Report recommending that the Motion be granted in part and denied in part [ECF No. 19 pp. 1, 11]. Objections to the Report were due on April 25, 2023 [ECF No. 19 p. 11]. No party filed objections, and the time to do so has expired [ECF No. 19 p. 11]. 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 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 well reasoned and correct. For the reasons set forth in the Report [ECF No. 19 pp. 4–10], it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: 1. The Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 19] is ACCEPTED. 2. The Motion [ECF No. 11] is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART as follows: a. As to Count I, the Motion is DENIED as to Defendant’s failure to accommodate Plaintiff’s December 2021 request to work remotely but GRANTED as to all other requests for accommodation. b. As to Count II, the Motion is GRANTED. Count II of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.1

c. As to Count III, the Motion is DENIED as to Plaintiff’s discharge but GRANTED as to all other allegedly adverse employment actions. 3. On or before May 15, 2023, Defendant shall file an Answer to Counts I and III in the Amended Complaint as narrowed by the adopted Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 19].

1 Plaintiff previously filed an Amended Complaint in response to an earlier Motion to Dismiss [ECF No. 9] and provides no basis upon which to consider a further amendment [see ECF No. 14]. CASE NO. 22-14398-CIV-CANNON/McCabe

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Fort Pierce, Florida, this 1st day of May 2023.

AILEEN CANNON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE ce: counsel of record