Siegal v. Holiday CVS, L.L.C.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA WEST PALM BEACH DIVISION CASE NO. 25-80667-CIV-CANNON/McCabe STEPHEN SIEGAL, Plaintiff, v. HOLIDAY CVS, LLC, and CVS PHARMACY, INC. Defendants. _________________________________/ ORDER ACCEPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [ECF NO. 22] THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon Magistrate Judge McCabe’s Report and Recommendation on Defendants’ Amended Motion to Dismiss Count II of Plaintiff’s Complaint (the “Report”), issued on August 1, 2025 [ECF No. 22]. On June 20, 2025, Defendants filed an Amended Motion to Dismiss Count II of Plaintiff’s Complaint (the “Motion”) [ECF No. 12]. On August 1, 2025, following referral, Judge McCabe issued a Report recommending that the Motion be denied [ECF Nos. 14, 22]. Objections to the Report were due on August 15, 2025 [ECF No. p. 9]. No party has filed objections, and the time to do so has expired.

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. 25-80667-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 review, the Court finds the well-reasoned Report to contain no clear error of fact or law. Accordingly, for the reasons set forth in the Report [ECF No. 22], it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: 1. The Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 22] 1s ACCEPTED.

2. Defendants’ Amended Motion to Dismiss Count II of Plaintiffs Complaint [ECF No. 12] is DENIED.

3. On or before September 5, 2025, Defendants shall answer Plaintiff's Complaint [ECF No. 1-1].

ORDERED in Chambers at Fort Pierce, Florida this 19th day of August 2025.

CL UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE ce: counsel of record