Carnahan v. U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO. 24-60947-CIV-SMITH
TIMOTHY W. CARNAHAN,
Plaintiff,
v.
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, et al.,
Defendants.
/
ORDER AFFIRMING AND ADOPTING REPORT OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE
This matter is before the Court upon the Report and Recommendation (the “Report”) [DE
46] of the Honorable Patrick Hunt, U.S. Magistrate Judge, on Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss
[DE 34] and [DE 42]. In his thorough and well-reasoned Report, Judge Hunt recommends that:
Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss, [DE 34] and [DE 42], be GRANTED, and the Second Amended
Complaint, [DE 25], be DISMISSED with prejudice. Plaintiff filed objections to the Report [DE
47], essentially repeating her initial arguments to the Magistrate Judge. Defendant filed a response
to the objections [DE 48].
A district court may accept, reject, or modify a magistrate judge’s report and
recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Those portions of the report and recommendation to
which objections are made are accorded de novo review, if those objections “pinpoint the specific
findings that the party disagrees with.” United States v. Schultz, 565 F.3d 1353, 1360 (11th Cir.
2009); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). Any portions of the report and recommendation to which
no specific objection is made are reviewed only for clear error. Liberty Am. Ins. Grp., Inc. v.
WestPoint Underwriters, L.L.C., 199 F. Supp. 2d 1271, 1276 (M.D. Fla. 2001); accord Macort v.
Prem, Inc., 208 F. App’x 781, 784 (11th Cir. 2006).
The Court, having considered Judge Hunt’s Report, Plaintiff’s objections thereto, and
having conducted a de novo review of the record, agrees with Judge Hunt’s well-reasoned analysis
and his recommendations. Accordingly, it is
Case 0:24-cv-60947-RS Document 49 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/26/2025 Page 1 of 2

ORDERED that:
1) The Report and Recommendation [DE 46] is AFFIRMED and ADOPTED and
incorporated by reference into this Court’s Order.
2) The Securities and Exchange Commission’s Motion to Dismiss [DE 34] is
GRANTED.
3) The Individual Defendants’, Margaret McGuire, David Peavler, and David
Woodcock, Motion to Dismiss [DE 42] is GRANTED.
4) Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint, [DE 25], is DISMISSED with prejudice.
5) This case is CLOSED.
DONE and ORDERED in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, this 26th day of November, 2025.
cc: All counsel of record
Case 0:24-cv-60947-RS Document 49 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/26/2025 Page 2 of 2