Filed: Jun. 04, 2012
Latest Update: Jun. 04, 2012
Summary: ORDER MARCIA MORALES HOWARD, District Judge. THIS CAUSE is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 36; Report), entered by the Honorable Thomas B. Smith, United States Magistrate Judge, on December 16, 2011. In the Report, Magistrate Judge Smith recommends that Defendant's Dispositive Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 29) be granted and that Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 30) be denied. See Report at 1. Plaintiff filed objections to the Report, an
Summary: ORDER MARCIA MORALES HOWARD, District Judge. THIS CAUSE is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 36; Report), entered by the Honorable Thomas B. Smith, United States Magistrate Judge, on December 16, 2011. In the Report, Magistrate Judge Smith recommends that Defendant's Dispositive Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 29) be granted and that Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 30) be denied. See Report at 1. Plaintiff filed objections to the Report, and..
More
ORDER
MARCIA MORALES HOWARD, District Judge.
THIS CAUSE is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 36; Report), entered by the Honorable Thomas B. Smith, United States Magistrate Judge, on December 16, 2011. In the Report, Magistrate Judge Smith recommends that Defendant's Dispositive Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 29) be granted and that Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 30) be denied. See Report at 1. Plaintiff filed objections to the Report, and Defendant responded. See Plaintiff's Objections to Report and Recommendation on Cross Motions for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 37; Objections); Defendant's Response to Plaintiff's Objections to Report and Recommendation on Cross Motions for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 38). This matter is ripe for review.
The Court "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). If no specific objections to findings of fact 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 file and for the reasons stated in the Magistrate Judge's Report, the Court will overrule the Plaintiff's Objections and accept and adopt the legal and factual conclusions recommended by the Magistrate Judge.1 Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED:
1. Plaintiff's Objections to Report and Recommendation on Cross Motions for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 37) are OVERRULED.
2. The Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 36) is ADOPTED as the opinion of the Court.
3. Defendant's Dispositive Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 29) is GRANTED.
4. Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 30) is DENIED.
5. The Clerk of the Court is directed to terminate all pending motions and deadlines as moot and close the file.
DONE AND ORDERED.
