ORDER1

SHERI POLSTER CHAPPELL, Magistrate Judge.

This matter comes before the Court on consideration of United States Magistrate Judge Douglas Frazier's Report and Recommendation (Doc. #95) filed on October 6, 2014. Judge Frazier recommends denying Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to Amend the Complaint to Assert a Claim for Punitive Damages (Doc. #73). (Doc. #95 at 1). The Parties have not objected to the Report and Recommendation, and the time to do so has now expired. Thus, this matter is ripe for review.

After conducting a careful and complete review of the findings and recommendations, a district judge may accept, reject, or modify the magistrate judge's report and recommendation. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also Williams v. Wainwright, 681 F.2d 732 (11th Cir. 1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1112 (1983). In the absence of specific objections, there is no requirement that a district judge review factual findings de novo, Garvey v. Vaughn, 993 F.2d 776, 779 n.9 (11th Cir. 1993), and the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings and recommendations, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The district judge reviews legal conclusions de novo, even in the absence of an objection. See Cooper-Houston v. Southern Ry. Co., 37 F.3d 603, 604 (11th Cir. 1994); Castro Bobadilla v. Reno, 826 F.Supp. 1428, 1431-32 (S.D. Fla. 1993), aff'd, 28 F.3d 116 (11th Cir. 1994) (Table).

After conducting an independent examination of the file and upon due consideration of Judge Frazier's findings and recommendations, the Court accepts the Report and Recommendation (Doc. #95).

Accordingly, it is now ORDERED:

DONE and ORDERED.