Berntheizel v. Safeco Insurance Company of Illinois

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FORT PIERCE DIVISION CASE NO. 21-14482-CIV-CANNON/McCabe CATHERINE BERNTHEIZEL, Plaintiff, v. SAFECO INSURANCE COMPANY OF ILLINOIS, Defendant. / ORDER ACCEPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [ECF No. 127] THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation on Defendant’s Motion for Sanctions (the “Report”) [ECF No. 127], filed on February 2, 2024. On December 7, 2023, Defendant filed a Motion for Sanctions (the “Motion”) [ECF No. 101]. On February 2, 2024, following referral, Judge McCabe issued a Report recommending that the Motion be denied without prejudice [ECF No. 127 pp. 1–2]. Objections to the Report were due on February 16, 2024 [ECF No. 127 pp. 1–2]. Defendant did not object to the Report, and Plaintiff filed a Notice of No objection to the Report [ECF No. 129].

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, 863 F.2d 815, 822 (11th Cir. 1989); Macort v. Prem, Inc., 208 F. App’x 781, 784 (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. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). To the extent a party fails to object to parts of the magistrate judge’s report, CASE NO. 21-14482-CIV-CANNON/McCabe the Court may accept the recommendation so long as there is no clear error on the face of the record. Macort, 208 F. App’x at 784. Legal conclusions are reviewed de novo, even in the absence of an objection. See LeCroy v. McNeil, 397 F. App’x 554, 556 (11th Cir. 2010); Cooper-Houston v. S. Ry. Co., 37 F.3d 603, 604 (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. 127 pp. 1-2], it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: 1. The Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 127] is ACCEPTED.

2. The Motion [ECF No. 101] is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

3. Any renewed motion for sanctions shall be filed no later than fourteen days after entry of final judgment.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Fort Pierce, Florida this 28th day of February 2024. ) AILEE . CANNON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE ce: counsel of record