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

CASE NO. 23-81565-CIV-CANNON/McCabe ANTON GOTCHOV MIKOV

Plaintiff, v.

VILLAGE OF PALM SPRINGS,

Defendant. _______________________________/ ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation on Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss [ECF No. 10]. The Report recommends that the Court deny Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss without prejudice and stay the case pending resolution of an appeal in a related case, Mikov v. Village of Palm Springs, 23-81094-CANNON (11th Cir. Appeal No. 23-13311-GG). No party has filed objections to the Report, and the time to do so has expired [ECF No. 19]. 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 CASE NO. 23-81565-CIV-CANNON/McCabe

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 law or fact in the Report. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: 1. The Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 18] is ACCEPTED. 2. Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss [ECF No. 10] is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE in accordance with the Report. 3. This case is STAYED pending the issuance of the Eleventh Circuit’s mandate in 11th Cir. Appeal No. 23-13311-GG. No later than 14 days following issuance of the mandate in that appeal, Plaintiff is directed to file a motion to reopen this case. 4. The Clerk is directed to ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSE this case, without prejudice to the parties. 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 15th day of May 2024.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

ce: counsel of record