UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA MIAMI DIVISION

CASE NO.: 21-cv-21632-GAYLES/TORRES

THI MEDICAL, S.A.C.,

Plaintiff,

v.

FILMORE MANAGEMENT TRADING, LLC, et al.,

Defendants.

___________________________________/

ORDER

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on Defendants Filmore and Ast’s Motion for Final Summary Judgment (the “Motion”). [ECF No. 95]. 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. 45]. On August 23, 2023, Judge Torres issued his report recommending that the Motion be granted and judgment be entered in favor of Defendants Filmore Management Trading LLC (“Filmore”) and Pedro R. Ast (“Ast”) (collectively referred to as “Defendants”) as to Counts I, II, IV, VI, IX, and XI of the operative Complaint. (the “Report”). [ECF No. 99].1 Defendants filed limited objections to some of the factual findings in the Report but do not object to the Report’s recommendation. [ECF No. 100]. 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

1 Plaintiff failed to respond to the Motion. 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 and that judgment as a matter of law be entered in Defendants’ favor as to Counts I, II, IV, VI, IX, and XI of the operative Complaint.2 Defendants agree with Judge Torres’s recommendation but object to some of his factual findings because they are either unsupported by the record or typographical errors. Having conducted a de novo review of the record, the Court will sustain the objections. However, the Court finds that the factual findings at issue are not material to the Report’s findings as a matter of law. As a result, the Court adopts the Report’s recommendation that judgment be entered in favor of Defendants but does not adopt the specific factual findings objected to by Defendants. See

[ECF No. 100]. CONCLUSION Accordingly, after careful consideration, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: (1) Judge Torres’s Report and Recommendation, [ECF No. 78], is ADOPTED in part; (2) Defendants’ Motion for Final Summary Judgment [ECF No. 95] is GRANTED;

2 The other counts in the Amended Complaint were previously dismissed. See [ECF Nos. 73, 79]. (3) Final Judgment shall be entered by separate order; (4) This case is CLOSED and all pending motions are DENIED as MOOT. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this 14th day of September, 2023.

Df DARRIN P. GAYLES UNITED STATES DI ICT JUDGE