Filed: Sep. 22, 2015
Latest Update: Sep. 22, 2015
Summary: OPINION AND ORDER JOHN E. STEELE , Senior District Judge . This matter is before the Court on consideration of the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (Doc. #44), filed September 2, 2015, recommending that plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint (Doc. #37) be granted in part and denied in part as set forth therein. No objections have been filed and the time to do so has expired. After conducting a careful and complete review of the findings and recommendatio
Summary: OPINION AND ORDER JOHN E. STEELE , Senior District Judge . This matter is before the Court on consideration of the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (Doc. #44), filed September 2, 2015, recommending that plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint (Doc. #37) be granted in part and denied in part as set forth therein. No objections have been filed and the time to do so has expired. After conducting a careful and complete review of the findings and recommendation..
More
OPINION AND ORDER
JOHN E. STEELE, Senior District Judge.
This matter is before the Court on consideration of the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (Doc. #44), filed September 2, 2015, recommending that plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint (Doc. #37) be granted in part and denied in part as set forth therein. No objections have been filed and the time to do so has expired.
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. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); 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 the Report and Recommendation, the Court accepts the Report and Recommendation of the magistrate judge.
Accordingly, it is now
ORDERED:
1. The Report and Recommendation (Doc. #44) is hereby adopted and the findings incorporated herein.
2. Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint (Doc. #37) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.
3. Consistent with this Opinion and Order, and the findings of the Report and Recommendation, plaintiff may file a Second Amended Complaint within FOURTEEN (14) DAYS of this Opinion and Order (Doc. #44) to add defendants Mike Tamulionis and Vincent Amoroso (except as to the Fifth Amendment), and to drop defendant Garylee McDermed. Plaintiff may also replead Count VII to the extent he wishes to assert an implementation claim.
DONE and ORDERED.
