ORDER

ROY B. DALTON, Jr., District Judge.

This cause is before the Court for consideration of United States Magistrate Judge Douglas N. Frazier's Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 35), filed on March 23, 2012; Plaintiffs' Objections to the Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 36), filed on April 6, 2012; and, Defendant's Response in Opposition (Doc. No. 38), filed on April 20, 2012.

DISCUSSION

When a party objects to the magistrate judge's findings, the district court must "make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also United States v. Veteto, 701 F.2d 136, 140 (11th Cir. 1983) (indicating that although the court must make a de novo determination, a de novo hearing is not required). A de novo determination requires the district judge to consider factual issues on the record independent of the magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation. Jeffrey S. by Ernest S. v. State Bd. of Educ. of State of Ga., 896 F.2d 507, 513 (11th Cir. 1990). The district judge "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).

Magistrate Judge Frazier issued his report recommending that Plaintiffs' Motion to Amend Complaint1 (Doc. No. 25) be denied. (Doc. No. 35.) Plaintiffs filed their objections (Doc. No. 36) requesting the undersigned to reject the Magistrate Judge's recommendation and allow Plaintiffs to add the additional parties.

After an independent de novo review of the record in this matter, including the objections filed by Plaintiffs and Defendant's response to said objections, the Court agrees entirely with the findings of fact and conclusions of law in Magistrate Judge Frazier's Report and Recommendation. The Court finds that Plaintiffs' further arguments set forth in the objections do not warrant additional discussion, as the Report and Recommendation addresses those arguments in a well-reasoned and a thorough manner.2 The Court overrules Defendant's objections and adopts Magistrate Judge Frazier's analysis and conclusions.

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, it is ORDERED as follows:

1. The Report and Recommendation filed on March 23, 2012, (Doc. No. 22), is ADOPTED and made a part of this Order.

2. Plaintiffs' Objections filed on April 6, 2012, (Doc. No. 36), are OVERRULED.

3. Plaintiffs' Motion to Amend Complaint filed on February 1, 2012, (Doc. No. 25), is DENIED.

DONE and ORDERED.