ORDER AFFIRMING AND ADOPTING REPORT OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE

DARRIN P. GAYLES, District Judge.

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on the Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 26] ("Report") of Magistrate Judge Barry S. Seltzer. Plaintiff filed a complaint under the Fair Housing Act, asserting two counts against Defendant: Count I — Failure to Reasonably Accommodate under 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)(B) and Count II — Discrimination in the Terms, Conditions, or Privileges of the Provisions of Services or Facilities in Connection with a Dwelling under 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(2)(B). [ECF No. 1]. Plaintiff is seeking compensatory and punitive damages and attorney's fees and costs. [Id.]. Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss Complaint with Prejudice [ECF No. 18] ("Motion"). This matter was referred to Magistrate Judge Seltzer, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), for a ruling on all pretrial, non-dispositive matters, and for a Report and Recommendation on any dispositive matters. [ECF No. 25]. Judge Seltzer recommends that the Motion be granted in part and denied in part. [ECF No. 26]. Specifically, Judge Seltzer recommends that Count II be dismissed with prejudice because Plaintiff failed to state a "distinct and separate claim pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 2604(f)(2)," [id. at 10], but recommends that the Motion be denied "in all other respects." [Id. at 14-15]. Defendant filed an objection to Judge Seltzer's Report requesting that the Court strike Plaintiff's claim for punitive damages. [ECF No. 27].

A district court may accept, reject, or modify a magistrate judge's report and recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Those portions of the report and recommendation to which objection is made are accorded de novo review, if those objections "pinpoint the specific findings that the party disagrees with." United States v. Schultz, 565 F.3d 1353, 1360 (11th Cir. 2009); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). Any portions of the report and recommendation to which no specific objection is made are reviewed only for clear error. Liberty Am. Ins. Grp., Inc. v. WestPoint Underwriters, L.L.C., 199 F.Supp.2d 1271, 1276 (M.D. Fla. 2001); accord Macort v. Prem, Inc., 208 F. App'x 781, 784 (11th Cir. 2006).

This Court, having conducted a de novo review of the record, agrees with Judge Seltzer's well-reasoned analysis. Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged that Defendant "discriminate[d] in the face of a perceived risk that its actions will violate federal law." See Kolstad v. Am. Dental Ass'n, 527 U.S. 526, 536 (1999). Therefore, Plaintiff's demand for punitive damages shall remain at this stage of the proceedings.

Accordingly, after careful consideration, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:

DONE and ORDERED.