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

CASE NO. 23-81420-CIV-CANNON/Reinhart

SEMPER FOODS, LLC,

Plaintiff, v.

ERIC OUELLETE and SEMPER CONSULTING, LLC,

Defendants. _____________________________/ ERIC OUELETTE and SEMPER CONSULTING, LLC,

Counter-Plaintiffs, v.

SEMPER FOODS LLC et al.,

Counter-Defendant and Third-Party Defendants. _____________________________/ ORDER ACCEPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [ECF No. 74]

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation on Plaintiff’s Motion for a Preliminary Injunction (the “Report”) [ECF No. 101], filed on May 6, 2024. On October 10, 2023, Plaintiff filed a Motion for a Preliminary Injunction (the “Motion”) [ECF No. 8]. On May 6, 2024, following referral, Judge Reinhart issued a Report recommending that the Motion be denied [ECF No. 74 pp. 1, 37]. Objections to the Report were due on May 20, 2024 [ECF No. 74 p. 37]. Defendants filed a Notice of No Objection [ECF No. 75]; Plaintiff filed a timely Objection [ECF No. 77]; but then, on July 12, 2024, Plaintiff withdrew its Objection [ECF No. 101]. CASE NO. 23-81420-CIV-CANNON/Reinhart

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 review, the Court finds no clear error of fact or law in the comprehensive and well-reasoned Report. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: 1. The Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 74] is ACCEPTED. 2. Plaintiff's Motion for a Preliminary Injunction [ECF No. 8] is DENIED. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Fort Pierce, Florida this 19th day of July 2024.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE ce: counsel of record