OPINION AND ORDER1

SHERI POLSTER CHAPPELL, District Judge.

Before the Court is United States Magistrate Judge Mac R. McCoy's Report and Recommendation ("R&R") (Doc. 25), recommending that Plaintiffs Charles and Tracy Lamirand's Motion to Strike Defendant's Amended Affirmative Defenses (Doc. 23) be granted in part and denied in part. No party has objected to the R&R, and the period to do so has elapsed. This matter is ripe for review.

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). Absent specific objections, there is no requirement that a district judge review factual findings de novo, and the court may accept, reject, or modify the findings in whole or in part. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Garvey v. Vaughn, 993 F.2d 776, 779 n.9 (11th Cir. 1993). The district judge reviews legal conclusions de novo, even with no objection. Cooper-Houston v. Southern Ry. Co., 37 F.3d 603, 604 (11th Cir. 1994).

Here, after thoughtfully analyzing each affirmative defense, Judge McCoy recommends that the Court strike Fay Servicing's second, seventh, and eight defenses without prejudice and its fourth defense with prejudice, and that the Court deny the Motion as to the remaining defenses. After conducting an independent examination of the file and on consideration of Judge McCoy's findings and recommendations, the Court accepts the R&R.

Accordingly, it is now

ORDERED:

United States Magistrate Judge Mac R. McCoy's Report and Recommendation (Doc. 25) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED and Plaintiffs' Charles and Tracy Lamirand's Motion to Strike Amended Affirmative Defenses is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

DONE and ORDERED.