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. #34), filed June 3, 2015, recommending that plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint (Doc. #30) be denied. 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. #34) is hereby adopted and the findings incorporated herein.

2. Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint (Doc. #30) is DENIED.

DONE and ORDERED.