ORDER

MARCIA MORALES HOWARD, District Judge.

THIS CAUSE is before the Court on the Report & Recommendation (Doc. 14; Report), entered by the Honorable Monte C. Richardson, United States Magistrate Judge, on September 5, 2019. In the Report, Judge Richardson recommends that Plaintiff's Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs, which the Court construes as a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 2; Motion), be denied, and that this case be dismissed without prejudice. See Report at 1, 6-7. Specifically, the Magistrate Judge determined that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to the Rooker-Feldman doctrine.1 Plaintiff filed objections to the Report on September 24, 2019. See Plaintiff Objection and Response to Report and Recommendation (Doc. 16; Objections). In the Objections, Plaintiff continues to argue the substance of her claims. Significantly, Plaintiff argues that the "reasonable questions presented" in this lawsuit include whether this Court should "vacate" the "amendend [sic] complaint to foreclose mortgage," and whether the foreclosure sale is "null, void and unconstitutional under state law." See id. at 5-6. Plaintiff does not, however, identify any factual errors in the Report. Nor does she address or object to the Magistrate Judge's recommended legal conclusion that this matter is barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine.

In addition, on August 30, 2019, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (Rule(s)). See Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint (Doc. 13; Motion).2 In the Motion, Defendants argue, inter alia, that Plaintiff's claims are barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. See Motion at 6-7. Plaintiff responded to the Motion on September 10, 2019. See Plaintiff Objection to Defendants Motion to Dismiss Complaint for the Conversion of Property Case (Doc. 15; Response). As with her Objections, Plaintiff does not address the Rooker-Feldman doctrine and continues to argue that the underlying decision of Florida's First District Court of Appeal was in error. See id. at 1-5. Indeed, Plaintiff requests that this Court "reinstate" a prior order of the state court, and vacate the "certificate of sale," "certificate of title," and "final judgment of mortgage foreclosure" due to "egregious errors throughout the case." Id. at 15-16.

The Court "may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the finding or recommendations by the magistrate judge." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). If no specific objections to findings of facts are filed, the district court is not required to conduct a de novo review of those findings. See Garvey v. Vaughn, 993 F.2d 776, 779 n.9 (11th Cir. 1993); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). However, the district court must review legal conclusions de novo. See Cooper-Houston v. Southern Ry. Co., 37 F.3d 603, 604 (11th Cir. 1994); United States v. Rice, No. 2:07-mc-8-FtM-29SPC, 2007 WL 1428615, at *1 (M.D. Fla. May 14, 2007).

Upon independent review of the file3 and for the reasons stated in the Magistrate Judge's Report, the Court will overrule the Objections and accept and adopt the legal and factual conclusions recommended by the Magistrate Judge. Because the Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that this action is due to be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, the Court will also grant Defendants' Motion on that basis.4 Accordingly, it is hereby

ORDERED:

DONE AND ORDERED.