Wild v. UNUM Life Insurance Company of America

• Court: District Court, M.D. Florida
• Decided: March 26, 2025
• Docket: 3:23-cv-00986
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JACKSONVILLE DIVISION

HELEN WILD,

Plaintiff, Case No. 3:23-cv-986-BJD-LLL v.

UNUM LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA,

Defendant. / ORDER THIS CAUSE is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 35; Report), entered by the Honorable Laura Lothman, United States Magistrate Judge. In the Report, the Magistrate Judge considered Defendant’s Motion for Final Summary Judgment on the Administrative Record (Doc. 24); Plaintiff’s Dispositive Brief in Support of her Complaint (Doc. 27); and the briefing related thereto. Ultimately, the Magistrate Judge recommended that Defendant’s Motion be granted and Plaintiff’s Motion be denied. Plaintiff filed an objection (Doc. 36), to which Defendant responded (Doc. 38). The Court “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). If no specific objections to findings of fact are filed, the district court is not required to conduct de novo review of those findings. See Garvey v. Vaughn, 993 F.2d 776, 779 n.9 (11th Cir. 1993); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

If, on the other hand, a party files an objection, the district judge must conduct a de novo review of the portions of a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation to which the party objects. Kohser v. Protective Life Corp., 649 F. App’x 774, 777 (11th Cir. 2016); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also Fed. R.

Civ. P. 72(b)(3) (on dispositive matters, “the district judge must determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition that has been properly objected to”). The Court reviews de novo the Magistrate Judge’s proposed findings of fact and legal conclusions to which Defendant objected. 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1). After de novo review, the Report is due to be adopted. Accordingly, after due consideration, it is ORDERED: 1. Plaintiff’s Objection to the Report (Doc. 36) is OVERRULED.

2. The Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 35) is ADOPTED as the opinion of the Court. 3. Plaintiff’s Dispositive Brief in Support of her Complaint (Doc. 27) is DENIED.

4. Defendant’s Motion for Final Summary Judgment on the Administrative Record (Doc. 24) is GRANTED. 5. The Clerk of the Court is directed to terminate all pending motions and close the file. DONE and ORDERED in Jacksonville, Florida this 26th day of March, 2025.

/ Ay rcien ( | >» BAT ieee BRIAN DAVIS United States District Judge 2 Copies furnished to: Counsel of Record Unrepresented Parties