Brighthouse Life Insurance Company v. FENELON

• Court: District Court, S.D. Florida
• Decided: May 27, 2025
• Docket: 2:23-cv-14328
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 2:23-cv-14328-LEIBOWITZ/MAYNARD

BRIGHTHOUSE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff,

v.

FRANCOISE FENELON and TANISE SHANELL FENELON Defendants. _____________________________/ FRANCOISE FENELON, Cross Claimant,

TANISE SHANELL FENELON, Cross Defendant. _____________________________/

ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

THIS MATTER was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Shaniek Mills Maynard for a report and recommendation (“R&R”) on Defendant Francoise Fenelon’s Request for Judicial Notice in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 59] (the “Motion”). [See ECF No. 77]. Judge Maynard has since issued a PAPERLESS R&R, recommending the Motion be GRANTED. [ECF No. 79]. The parties have filed Notices of Non-Objection to the R&R [ECF Nos. 80 and 81]. Accordingly, upon due consideration of the R&R, the Motion, the parties’ papers, the applicable law, and the relevant portions of the record, the Court ADOPTS and AFFIRMS the Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 79]. LEGAL STANDARD After conducting a review of the findings and recommendations, a district judge may accept, reject, or modify a magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). If a party files a timely and specific objection to a finding of fact by a magistrate judge, the district court must conduct a de novo review with respect to that factual issue. Stokes v. Singletary, 952 F.2d 1567, 1576 (11th Cir. 1992). The district court reviews legal conclusions de nove, even in the absence of an objection. See Cooper-Houston v. S. Ry. Co., 37 F.3d 603, 604 (11th Cir. 1994); Ashworth v. Glades Cnty. Bd. of Cnty. Comm’rs, 379 F. Supp. 3d 1244, 1246 (M.D. Fla. 2019). ‘To the extent a party fails to object to parts of the magistrate judge’s report, those portions are reviewed for clear error. Macort v. Prem. Inc., 208 F. App’x 781, 784 (11th Cir. 2006) (quoting Johnson v. Zema Sys. Corp., 170 F.3d 734, 739 (7th Cir. 1999)). CONCLUSION Upon review, the Court finds no error. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED: 1. The Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 79] is ADOPTED and made a part of this Order for all purposes. 2. ‘The Motion [ECF No. 59] is GRANTED. DONE AND ORDERED in the Southern District of Florida on May 27, 2025. D> 2 DAVID 8S. LEIBOWITZ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

cc: counsel of record