Susan Vicknair and Linda Ungerleider v. Hartford Insurance Company of the Midwest

Opinion

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

CASE NO. 25-81155-CIV-CANNON

SUSAN VICKNAIR and LINDA UNGERLEIDER,

Plaintiffs, v.

HARTFORD INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE MIDWEST,

Defendant. _________________________________/

ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS, DISMISSING COMPLAINT, AND PERMITTING FINAL REPLEADING THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon Magistrate Judge Ryon M. McCabe’s Report (the “Report”) [ECF No. 19], which recommends granting Defendants’ Amended Motion to Dismiss (the “Motion”) but allowing Plaintiffs to replead their claims via an Amended Complaint [ECF No. 11]. The Court has reviewed the Report, Plaintiffs’ Objections [ECF No. 23], Defendant’s Response to Plaintiffs’ Objections [ECF No. 26], Defendant’s Motion and related briefing [ECF Nos. 11, 13, 14], Plaintiffs’ Complaint [ECF No. 1-1], and the full record. Upon review, the Report is ACCEPTED; Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED; and Plaintiff’s Complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE with one final opportunity to replead as indicated below. DISCUSSION Plaintiffs’ one-sentence “objection” fails to sufficiently object to the Report [see ECF No. 23]. All it says is that “Plaintiffs hereby give notice that they object to the Report and Recommendation [DE 19],” without any factual or legal support for any purported objection. This CASE NO. 25-81155-CIV-CANNON

is clearly insufficient to raise a valid objection to a report and recommendation. Indeed, “[p]arties filing objections to a magistrate’s report and recommendation must specifically identify those findings objected to,” and “[f]rivolous, conclusive, or general objections need not be considered by the district court.” Marsden v. Moore, 847 F.2d 1536, 1548 (11th Cir. 1988). As such—and finding no clear error on the face of the record—the Court accepts the Report. See, e.g., Hernandez v. United States, 771 F. Supp. 3d 1306, 1312 (S.D. Fla. 2025) (“If a party fails to object to parts of the report, the Court may accept the recommendation so long as there is no clear error on the face of the record.” (citing Macort v. Prem, Inc., 208 F. App’x 781, 784 (11th Cir. 2006)). CONCLUSION Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: 1. The Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 19] is ACCEPTED. 2. Defendant’s Amended Motion to Dismiss [ECF No. 11] is GRANTED. 3. Plaintiffs’ Complaint [ECF No. 1-1] is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 4. Plaintiffs are afforded one final opportunity to replead their claim, but any such Amended Complaint is due no later than February 9, 2026, and must account for the standing deficiencies identified in the Report and in Defendants’ Motion. 5. Failure to replead by the above deadline will result in an order closing this case without further notice. ORDERED in Chambers at Fort Pierce, Florida, this 29th day of January 2026.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE cc: counsel of record