James Stannard v. Goldoro Developments, Inc.

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 9:24-cv-81521-LEIBOWITZ/HERNANDEZ

JAMES STANNARD,

Plaintiff, v.

GOLDORO DEVELOPMENTS, INC., ,

Defendants. ______________________________________________/

ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon the Report and Recommendation by United States Magistrate Judge Yeney Hernandez [ECF No. 71] (the “R&R”), filed on July 7, 2026. Judge Hernandez recommends granting the parties’ Joint Motion to Approve Settlement and to Dismiss Case with Prejudice. [ECF No. 65]. [ECF No. 71 at 3]. “In order to challenge the findings and recommendations of the magistrate judge, a party must file written objections which shall specifically identify the portions of the proposed findings and recommendation to which objection is made and the specific basis for objection.” Macort v. Prem, Inc., 208 F. App’x 781, 783 (11th Cir. 2006) (cleaned up). The objections must also present “supporting legal authority.” S.D. Fla. L. Mag. J.R. 4(b). Once a district court receives “objections meeting the specificity requirement set out above,” it must “make a de novo determination of 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.” Macort, 208 F. App’x at 783–84 (cleaned up). To the extent a party fails to object to parts of the magistrate judge’s report, those portions are reviewed for clear error. Id. at 784 (cleaned up). No objections were filed during the 14-day objection period. After reviewing the R&R for clear error, the Court finds no clear error. The Court approves Judge Hernandez’s careful consideration of the proposed settlement and adopts the R&R in its entirety. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: 1. The Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 71] is APPROVED and ADOPTED and made a part of this Order for all purposes. 2. The Settlement Agreement [ECF No. 65-1] is APPROVED. 3. This action is DISMISSED with prejudice. 4. The Clerk is directed to CLOSE this case. All deadlines ace TERMINATED, and any pending motions are DENIED as moot. 5. The Court retains jurisdiction for the sole purpose of enforcing the parties’ settlement agreement.

DONE AND ORDERED in the Southern District of Florida on July 30, 2026. ee es UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

cc: counsel of record