UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO.: 0:24-cv-60016-DPG

RUDOLPH BETANCOURT,

Plaintiff,

v.

SALLY BEAUTY SUPPLY, LLC and M&S PROPERTY MANAGEMENT CORP.,

Defendants. ______________________________________/

ORDER

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on Magistrate Judge Panayotta Augustin-Birch’s Report and Recommendation on Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss (the “Report”). [ECF No. 28]. On February 20, 2024 and March 7, 2024, Defendants Sally Beauty Supply, LLC and M&S Property Management Corp. respectively filed their mirroring Motions to Dismiss, or in the Alternative, Motions to Strike Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint (the “Motions”). [ECF Nos. 18, 21]. Plaintiff then filed his Responses, [ECF Nos. 20, 23]. Defendants did not file any replies. On March 27, 2024, the Court referred the case to Judge 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. 26]. On April 23, 2024, Judge Augustin-Birch issued her Report recommending that the Court grant, in part, and deny, in part, Defendants’ Motions. [ECF No. 28]. The parties have not objected to the Report. 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 objections are 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 objections are 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). This Court finds no clear error with Judge Augustin-Birch’s well-reasoned analysis and agrees that the Motions should be granted, in part, and denied, in part. Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: 1. Magistrate Judge Panayotta Augustin-Birch’s Report and Recommendation on Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss, [ECF No. 28], is AFFIRMED AND ADOPTED and incorporated into this Order by reference; 2. Defendant Sally Beauty Supply, LLC’s Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative, Motion to Strike Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint, [ECF No. 18], and Defendant M&S Property Management Corp.’s Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative, Motion to Strike Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint, [ECF No. 21], are GRANTED as to Plaintiff’s request to inspect the subject property for unknown barriers to access. The Motions are otherwise DENIED; and 3. Paragraph eighteen (18) of the First Amended Complaint, [ECF No. 13], is hereby STRICKEN. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this 23rd day ay, 2024.

i. £

UNITED STATES DIST JUDGE