Hammad v. LOWE'S HOME CENTERS LLC

Opinion

SUONUITTEHDE RSTNA DTIESTS RDIICSTTR OIFC TF LCOORUIRDTA FORT PIERCE DIVISION

CASE NO. 24-14200-CIV-CANNON/Maynard

ABDEL HAMMAD,

Plaintiff, v.

LOWE’S HOME CENTERS LLC, DENNIS PLUMMER, DAVID MCNULTY, and MARIO CRUZ,

Defendants. __________________________________/ ORDER ACCEPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND DISMISSING INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon Magistrate Judge Maynard’s Report and Recommendation (the “Report”), issued on November 21, 2024 [ECF No. 33]. The Report recommends that Plaintiff’s Second “Motion to Remand and to Amend Case Style” (the “Motion”) [ECF No. 26] be denied. Both Plaintiff and Defendants filed Notices of No Objections to the Report [ECF Nos. 34–35]. Upon review of the Report and the Motion, the Report [ECF No. 33] is ACCEPTED, and the Motion [ECF No. 26] is DENIED 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 (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’s report, CASE NO. 24-14200-CIV-CANNON/Maynard 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. Legal conclusions are reviewed de novo, even in the absence of an objection. See LeCroy v. McNeil, 397 F. App’x 554, 556 (11th Cir. 2010); Cooper-Houston v. S. Ry. Co., 37 F.3d 603, 604 (11th Cir. 1994). Following review, the Court finds no clear error on the face of the Report and no errors of law. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: 1. The Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 33] is ACCEPTED. 2. The Motion to Remand and to Amend Case Style [ECF No. 26] is DENIED for the reasons stated in the Report. 3. In light of this Order, Defendants Dennis Plummer, David McNulty, and Mario Cruz (the “Individual Defendants”) are DISMISSED as Defendants in this case, assuming they were properly added in the first instance. 4. The Individual Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss [ECF No. 31] is DENIED AS MOOT. The Clerk is directed to TERMINATE Dennis Plummer, David McNulty, and Mario Cruz as Defendants in this Action. 5. This case remains active between Plaintiff and Defendant Lowe’s Home Centers, LLC. 6. Any future amendment to the Amended Complaint must come in the form of a properly filed motion under Rule 15. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Fort Pierce, Florida, this 9th day of December 2024. “ AILEEN M..CANNON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE ce: counsel of record