Potter v. Lincoln Heritage Insurance Company et al

Filing 33

ORDER adopting Report and Recommendations - re 17 Report and Recommendations; Denying as moot 23 Motion to Strike; Plaintiff's 12 Amended Complaint is Dismissed without prejudice; Denying as moot 31 Motion for Entry of Default; Denying as moot 32 Motion for summary judgment; Denying as moot 13 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis; Denying as moot 14 Motion for More Definite Statement; Denying as moot 20 Motion for More Definite Statement; Denying as moot 20 motion to dismiss; Overruling 22 Objection. The Clerk is directed to close this case. Signed by Judge Carlos E. Mendoza on 7/26/2016. (DJD)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
ORLANDO DIVISION

ISAAC A. POTTER,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No: 6:16-cv-817-Orl-41KRS

LINCOLN HERITAGE LIFE
INSURANCE COMPANY, GERBER
LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, LIFE
OF BOSTON INSURANCE COMPANY,
GERBER PRODUCTS COMPANY,
SHIRLEY GROSSMAN, LARRY
SCHUNEMAN, KORRI BEHLER,
ALAN STACHURA, NESTLE
HOLDING INC. and THE
CORPORATION TRUST COMPANY,
Defendants.
/
ORDER
THIS CAUSE is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (the “R&R,” Doc.
17) submitted by U.S. Magistrate Judge Karla R. Spaulding, which recommends that this Court
dismiss without prejudice Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint (Doc. 12). Plaintiff has filed what
purports to be an objection to the R&R. (See Doc. 22).
A district court is required to review de novo the objected-to portions of a magistrate
judge’s recommendation. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). However, “[p]arties
filing objections to a magistrate’s report and recommendation must specifically identify those
findings objected to. Frivolous, conclusive, or general objections need not be considered by the
district court.” Marsden v. Moore, 847 F.2d 1536, 1548 (11th Cir. 1988). Here, from what the
Court can gather, Plaintiff does not identify any specific quarrel with the recommendation; rather,

Page 1 of 2

he only generally states that “plaintiff objects to the report and recommendation.” (Obj. at 1). Such
a statement does not trigger de novo review. In any event, the Court agrees with the findings of
fact and conclusions of law in the R&R.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED as follows:
1. The Report and Recommendation (Doc. 17) is ADOPTED and CONFIRMED and
made a part of this Order.
2. Plaintiff’s Objection (Doc. 22) is OVERRULED.
3. Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint (Doc. 12) is DISMISSED without prejudice.
4. All pending motions are DENIED as moot.
5. The Clerk is directed to close this case.
DONE and ORDERED in Orlando, Florida on July 26, 2016.

Copies furnished to:
Counsel of Record
Unrepresented Party

Page 2 of 2