Hernandez v. CAREERSOURCE PALM BEACH COUNTY, INC.

• Court: District Court, S.D. Florida
• Decided: January 30, 2023
• Docket: 9:22-cv-81149
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

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

CASE NO. 22-81149-CIV-CANNON/McCabe

YOLANDA HERNANDEZ,

Plaintiffs, v.

CAREERSOURCE PALM BEACH COUNTY, INC.,

Defendant. ___________________________________________/ ORDER ACCEPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [ECF No. 10]

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation on Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (the “Report”) [ECF No. 10], filed on October 28, 2022. On August 23, 2022, Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss the Complaint (the “Motion”) [ECF No. 4]. On October 28, 2022, following referral, Judge McCabe issued a Report recommending that the Motion be granted [ECF No. 10 pp. 1, 6]. Plaintiff filed Objections to the Report [ECF No. 11], and Defendant filed a Response to Plaintiff’s Objections [ECF No. 12]. 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, the Court may accept the recommendation so long as there is no clear error on the face of the CASE NO. 22-81149-CIV-CANNON/McCabe

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). The Court has conducted a de novo review of the Report [ECF No. 10], Plaintiff's Objections [ECF No. 11], Defendant’s Response to Plaintiff's Objections [ECF No. 12], and the full record in this case. Upon review of the foregoing materials, including Plaintiff's Objections, the Court finds Judge McCabe’s Report to be well-reasoned and correct. Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss [ECF No. 4] is therefore GRANTED for the reasons set forth in the Report [ECF No. 10 pp. 3-6]. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: 1. The Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 10] is ACCEPTED. 2. Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss [ECF No. 4] is GRANTED. 3. Plaintiff's Complaint [ECF No. 1] is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 4. Plaintiff will have one final opportunity to cure the pleading deficiencies set forth in the Report. Any Amended Complaint must be filed on or before February 10, 2023. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Fort Pierce, Florida this 27th day of January 2023.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE ce: counsel of record