Roper et al v. BMO Harris Bank
Filing
39
ORDER ACCEPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S 37 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND PERMITTING REPLEADING: GRANTING 21 DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS. Amended Complaint due by 11/14/2024. Signed by Judge Aileen M. Cannon on 10/25/2024. See attached document for full details. (caw)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
WEST PALM BEACH DIVISION
CASE NO. 24-80364-CIV-CANNON/McCabe
KEMARLY ROPER and
STEPHANIE ROPER,
v.
Plaintiffs,
BMO HARRIS BANK,
Defendant.
____________________________/
ORDER ACCEPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND PERMITTING REPLEADING
THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (the
“Motion”) [ECF No. 21]. The Motion was referred to Magistrate Judge Ryon M. McCabe for a
Report and Recommendation. On October 4, 2024, Judge McCabe issued a Report recommending
that the Motion be granted, but that Plaintiffs be given an opportunity to amend the Complaint
[ECF No. 37]. Objections to the Report were due on or before October 18, 2024 [ECF No. 37
p. 8]. Neither party filed objections to the Report, and the time to do so has expired.
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 recommendation
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. 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
CASE NO. 24-80364-CIV-CANNON/McCabe
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. Legal conclusions are reviewed de novo, even in the absence of an objection.
See LeCroy v. McNeil, 397 F. App’x 554, 556 (11th Cir. 2010); Cooper-Houston v. S. Ry. Co., 37
F.3d 603, 604 (11th Cir. 1994).
Following de novo review, the Court finds no clear error of fact in the well-reasoned Report
and no errors of law.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
1.
The Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 37] is ACCEPTED.
2.
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss [ECF No. 21] is GRANTED.
3.
Plaintiffs shall be given one final opportunity to file an amended pleading
consistent with the Report and this Order, but any such amended pleading is due on
or before November 14, 2024 [ECF No. 37].
4.
Any amended complaint must clearly set forth the allegations supporting each claim
for relief; separate each cause of action or claim for relief into a different count;
and clearly and specifically identify how the defendant is responsible for the alleged
acts or omissions.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Fort Pierce, Florida this 25th day of October
2024.
________________________________
AILEEN M. CANNON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
cc:
counsel of record
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?