Hallmark Insurance Company v. Maxum Casualty Insurance Company

Filing 69

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 54 Motion to Strike ; adopting 65 Report and Recommendations. Signed by Judge Roy B. Dalton, Jr. on 7/17/2017. (VMF)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
ORLANDO DIVISION
HALLMARK INSURANCE
COMPANY,
v.

Plaintiff,

Case No. 6:16-cv-2063-Orl-37GJK

MAXUM CASUALTY INSURANCE
COMPANY,
Defendant.
ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Defendant, Maxum
Insurance Company’s Affirmative Defenses (Doc. 54 (“Motion”)), Defendant’s Response
in Opposition to Hallmark’s Motion to Strike Its Affirmative Defenses and Incorporated
Memorandum of Law (Doc. 58 (“Response”)), and U.S. Magistrate Judge Gregory J.
Kelly’s Report and Recommendation that the Motion should be granted in part and
denied in part (Doc. 65 (“R&R”)). No party objected to the R&R, and the time to do so
passed on July 14, 2017.
DISCUSSION
When written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations in a
magistrate judge’s report and recommendation are filed, the district court must make a
de novo determination of the portions of the report to which an objection is made.
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). But when the litigants fail to file specific objections to the
magistrate’s factual findings, the district court reviews the report and recommendation
-1-

for clear error—not under the stricter de novo standard of review. See Garvey v. Vaugh,
993 F.2d 776, 779 n.9 (11th Cir. 1993);

Wiand v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.,

No. 8:12-cv-557-T-27EAJ, 2016 WL 355490, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 28, 2016); see also Marcort
v. Prem, Inc., 208 F. App’x 781, 784 (11th Cir. 2006) (“Most circuits agree that in the absence
of a timely filed objection, a district court need not conduct a de novo review, but instead
must only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to
accept the recommendation.”). Ultimately, the district 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)(1)(C).
In the absence of objections, the Court has reviewed the R&R for clear error. In
doing so, the Court finds that the thoughtful findings and recommendations set forth in
the thorough R&R are correct. As such, the R&R is due to be adopted in its entirety.
CONCLUSION
Upon consideration, IT IS ORDERED that:
(1)

U.S. Magistrate Judge‘s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 65) is
ADOPTED, CONFIRMED, and made part of this Order.

(2)

Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Defendant, Maxum Insurance Company’s
Affirmative Defenses (Doc. 54) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN
PART. The Motion is GRANTED with respect to Defendant’s seventh,
eleventh, and twenty-third affirmative defenses, and the Motion is
otherwise DENIED.

(3)

Defendant’s seventh, eleventh, and twenty-third affirmative defenses are
-2-

STRICKEN.
(4)

On or before August 31, 2017, Defendant may replead its stricken
affirmative defenses.

DONE AND ORDERED in Orlando, Florida, this 17th day of July, 2017.

Copies to:
Counsel of Record

-3-