Vicknair et al v. Hartford Insurance Company of the Midwest

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
WEST PALM BEACH DIVISION
CASE NO. 25-81155-CIV-CANNON
SUSAN VICKNAIR and
LINDA UNGERLEIDER,
Plaintiffs,
v.
HARTFORD INSURANCE
COMPANY OF THE MIDWEST,
Defendant.
_________________________________/
ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, GRANTING
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS, DISMISSING COMPLAINT, AND
PERMITTING FINAL REPLEADING
THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon Magistrate Judge Ryon M. McCabe’s Report
(the “Report”) [ECF No. 19], which recommends granting Defendants’ Amended Motion to
Dismiss (the “Motion”) but allowing Plaintiffs to replead their claims via an Amended Complaint
[ECF No. 11]. 	The Court has reviewed the Report, Plaintiffs’ Objections [ECF No. 23],
Defendant’s Response to Plaintiffs’ Objections [ECF No. 26], Defendant’s Motion and related
briefing [ECF Nos. 11, 13, 14], Plaintiffs’ Complaint [ECF No. 1-1], and the full record. Upon
review, the Report is ACCEPTED; Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED; and Plaintiff’s
Complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE with one final opportunity to replead as
indicated below.
DISCUSSION
Plaintiffs’ one-sentence “objection” fails to sufficiently object to the Report [see ECF No.
23]. 	All it says is that “Plaintiffs hereby give notice that they object to the Report and
Recommendation [DE 19],” without any factual or legal support for any purported objection. This
Case 9:25-cv-81155-AMC Document 27 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/30/2026 Page 1 of 2

CASE NO. 25-81155-CIV-CANNON
2
is clearly insufficient to raise a valid objection to a report and recommendation. Indeed, “[p]arties
filing objections to a magistrate’s report and recommendation must specifically identify those
findings objected to,” and “[f]rivolous, conclusive, or general objections need not be considered
by the district court.” Marsden v. Moore, 847 F.2d 1536, 1548 (11th Cir. 1988). As such—and
finding no clear error on the face of the record—the Court accepts the Report. See, e.g., Hernandez
v. United States, 771 F. Supp. 3d 1306, 1312 (S.D. Fla. 2025) (“If a party fails to object to parts of
the report, the Court may accept the recommendation so long as there is no clear error on the face
of the record.” (citing Macort v. Prem, Inc., 208 F. App’x 781, 784 (11th Cir. 2006)).
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
1. 	The Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 19] is ACCEPTED.
2. 	Defendant’s Amended Motion to Dismiss [ECF No. 11] is GRANTED.
3. 	Plaintiffs’ Complaint [ECF No. 1-1] is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
4. 	Plaintiffs are afforded one final opportunity to replead their claim, but any such
Amended Complaint is due no later than February 9, 2026, and must account for
the standing deficiencies identified in the Report and in Defendants’ Motion.
5. 	Failure to replead by the above deadline will result in an order closing this case
without further notice.
ORDERED in Chambers at Fort Pierce, Florida, this 29th day of January 2026.
________________________________
AILEEN M. CANNON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
cc: 	counsel of record
Case 9:25-cv-81155-AMC Document 27 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/30/2026 Page 2 of 2