UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA MIAMI DIVISION

CASE NO.: 23-cv-62122-GAYLES/AUGUSTIN-BIRCH

JACLYN CHURCHILL and NICOLAS STEIN,

Plaintiffs,

v.

WRIGHT NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE,

Defendant.

_____________________________/

ORDER

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on Defendant Wright National Flood Insurance Company’s Motion to Dismiss (the “Motion”). [ECF No. 11]. The action was referred to Magistrate Judge Panayotta Augustin-Birch, 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. 15]. On February 28, 2024, Judge Augustin-Birch issued her report recommending that the Motion be granted (the “Report”). [ECF No. 19]. No timely objections have been filed. 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 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). The Court has reviewed the Report and finds no clear error with Judge Augustin-Birch’s well-reasoned analysis and finding that the Motion should be granted. CONCLUSION After careful consideration, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: (1) Judge Augustin Birch’s Report and Recommendation, [ECF No. 19], is ADOPTED in full; (2) Defendant Wright National Flood Insurance Company’s Motion to Dismiss, [ECF No. 11], is GRANTED. (3) Plaintiffs’ Complaint, [ECF No. 1], is DISMISSED with prejudice. (4) This action is CLOSED. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this 15th day of March, 2024.

of □□ UNITED STATES DI ICT JUDGE