Sherrod II v. Briar Bay Association

• Court: District Court, S.D. Florida
• Decided: October 3, 2025
• Docket: 9:25-cv-80199
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

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

CASE NO. 25-80199-CIV-CANNON

CURTIS SHERROD II, CURTIS SHERROD, SR., and TIFFANY PETER individually and on behalf of Minor children J.Z.S., A.J.A., and J.M.S.,

Plaintiffs, v.

BRIAR BAY ASSOCIATION, et al,

Defendants. ________________________________/ ORDER ACCEPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [ECF No. 100]

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation on Defendant Stuart Smith’s Motion to Quash Service of Process, issued on September 16, 2025 [ECF No. 100]. On August 26, 2025, Defendant Stuart Smith filed a Motion to Quash Service of Process (the “Motion”) [ECF No. 79]. On September 16, 2025, following referral, Judge McCabe issued a Report recommending that the Motion be granted [ECF No. 100 pp. 1, 8]. Objections to the Report were due on September 30, 2025 [ECF No. 100 pp. 7–8]. No party filed objections, and the time to do so has expired [ECF No. 100 p. 8]. 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 recommendations 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. CASE NO. 25-80199-CIV-CANNON/McCabe

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 record. Macort, 208 F. App’x at 784. Following review, the Court finds the well-reasoned Report to contain no clear error of fact or law. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: 1. The Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 100] is ACCEPTED. 2. The Motion to Quash Service as to Defendant Smith [ECF No. 79] is GRANTED. 3. The return of service on Defendant Smith [ECF No. 63] is QUASHED. 4. The Clerk of Court shall TERMINATE Stuart Smith as a Defendant in this matter. ORDERED in Chambers at Fort Pierce, Florida this 3rd day of October 2025.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE ce: counsel of record