UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FORT PIERCE DIVISION

CASE NO. 23-14195-CIV-CANNON

KEVIN DOUGHERTY,

Plaintiff, v.

JOHN TOTSCH, et al.,

Defendants. __________________________________/ ORDER ACCEPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION; GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS; AND DISMISSING CASE WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon Magistrate Judge Ryon M. McCabe’s Report and Recommendation on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint (the “Report”) [ECF No. 103], issued on August 1, 2024. On July 5, 2024, Defendants filed a Joint Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint (the “Motion”) [ECF No. 92]. Following referral, Judge McCabe issued a Report recommending that the Motion be granted and that the Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint be dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction [ECF No. 103 pp. 1, 4]. All parties have filed notices indicating no objection to the Report [ECF Nos. 104, 105]. 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. CASE NO. 23-14195-CIV-CANNON

(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 error of fact or law, clear or otherwise, in the well- reasoned Report. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: 1. The Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 103] is ACCEPTED. 2. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss [ECF No. 92] is GRANTED. 3. Plaintiffs Amended Complaint [ECF No. 91] is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 4. The Clerk shall CLOSE this case. Any scheduled hearings are CANCELED, any pending motions are DENIED AS MOOT, and all deadlines are TERMINATED. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Fort Pierce, Florida, this 12th day of August 2024.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE ce: counsel of record