Dr. Waleed Sayedahmad, M.D., and Atlantic Anesthesia & Spine Institute, P.A. v. Envision Physician Services, LLC, and Emcare Physician Providers, Inc.

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA WEST PALM BEACH DIVISION

CASE NO. 25-81562-CIV-CANNON

DR. WALEED SAYEDAHMAD, M.D., and ATLANTIC ANESTHESIA & SPINE INSTITUTE, P.A.,

Plaintiffs, v.

ENVISION PHYSICIAN SERVICES, LLC, and EMCARE PHYSICIAN PROVIDERS, INC.,

Defendants. ________________________________/

ORDER ACCEPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon Magistrate Judge McCabe’s Report and Recommendation (the “Report”), issued on April 14, 2026 [ECF No. 20]. The Report recommends that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Count III of Plaintiff’s Complaint (the “Motion”) [ECF No. 13] be granted without leave to amend due to the plain wording of the Independent Contractor Agreement [ECF No. 13-1]. No party filed objections to the Report, and the time to do so has expired. Upon review of the Report and the Motion, the well-reasoned Report [ECF No. 20] is ACCEPTED, and the Motion to Dismiss Count III [ECF No. 13] is GRANTED for the reasons stated in the Report. *** To challenge the findings and recommendations of a magistrate judge, a party must file specific written objections identifying the portions of the proposed findings and recommendation to which objection is made. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); Heath v. Jones, 863 F.2d 815, 822 CASE NO. 25-81562-CIV-CANNON/McCabe

(11th Cir. 1989); Macort v. Prem, Inc., 208 F. App’x 781, 784 (11th Cir. 2006). A district court reviews de novo those portions of the report to which objection is made and 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). To the extent a party fails to object to parts of the magistrate judge’ report, the Court may accept the recommendation so long as there is no clear error on the face of the record. Macort, 208 F. App’x at 784. TK Following review, the Court finds no clear error in the well-reasoned Report. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: 1. The Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 20] is ACCEPTED. 2. The Motion [ECF No. 13] is GRANTED for the reasons stated in the Report. 3. Count IN of Plaintiff's Complaint [ECF No.1] is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE for the reasons stated in the Report. 4. Scheduling Order to follow separately. ORDERED in Chambers at Fort Pierce, Florida, this 15th day of May 2026.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE cc: counsel of record