CASE NO. 8:07-CIV-1488-T-17-EAJ.United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Tampa Division.
December 4, 2007
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
ELIZABETH KOVACHEVICH, District Judge
This cause is before the Court on the report and recommendation (R R) issued by Magistrate Judge Elizabeth A. Jenkins on November 16, 2007 (Docket No. 21). The magistrate judge recommended that the Court find as followings: 1) deny plaintiff’s motion to remand (Docket No. 8) as moot; 2) grant plaintiffs’ motion for enlargement of time to the extent that plaintiffs be allowed to respond to the motion to quash service of process and dismiss plaintiffs’ void complaint (Docket No. 6); and 3) deny defendants’ motion to quash service of process and dismiss plaintiffs’ void complaint (Docket No. 3).
Pursuant to Rule 6.02, Rules of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, the parties had ten (10) days after service to file written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations, or be barred from attacking the factual findings on appeal. Nettles v. Wainwright,677 F.2d 404 (5th Cir. 1982) (en banc). No timely objections to the report and recommendation have been filed.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Page 2
When a party makes a timely and specific objection to a finding of fact in the report and recommendation, the district court should make a de novo review of the record with respect to that factual issue. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); U.S. v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667 (1980); Jeffrey S. v. State Board of Education of State ofGeorgia, 896 f.2d 507 (11th Cir. 1990). However, when no timely and specific objections are filed, case law indicates that the court should review the findings using a clearly erroneous standard. Gropp v. United Airlines, Inc., 817 F.Supp. 1558, 1562
(M.D. Fla. 1993).
The Court has reviewed the report and recommendation and made an independent review of the record. Upon due consideration, the Court concurs with the report and recommendation. Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that the report and recommendation (R R) issued by Magistrate Judge Elizabeth A. Jenkins on November 16, 2007 (Docket No. 21) be adopted and incorporated by reference herein;
that plaintiff’s motion to remand (Docket No. 8) be denied as moot; that plaintiffs’ motion for enlargement of time (Docket No. 6) be granted to the extent that plaintiffs’ response to the motion to quash service of process and dismiss plaintiffs’ void complaint was considered; and defendants’ motion to quash service of process and dismiss plaintiffs’ void complaint (Docket No. 3) be denied. This leaves pending only the motions to dismiss (Docket Nos. 12 and 13) which were filed on October 8 and 9, 2007.
DONE and ORDERED in Chambers.