Gomez v. Conviva Physician Group, LLC

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO. 2:25-cv-14359-LEIBOWITZ/MAYNARD
JAIME R. GOMEZ, M.D.,
Plaintiff,
v.
CONVIVA PHYSICIAN GROUP, LLC,
Defendant.
___________________________________/
ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon the Report and Recommendation by United States
Magistrate Judge Shaniek Mills Maynard [ECF No. 34] (the “R&R”), filed on January 30, 2026. In the
R&R, Judge Maynard recommends dismissing Plaintiff’s amended complaint in its entirety without
prejudice with leave to file a second amended complaint. [Id. at 19]. The parties each filed notices of
non-objection to the R&R. [See ECF Nos. 35, 37]. Accordingly, upon due consideration of the R&R,
the parties’ filings, the applicable law, and the record, the Court ADOPTS and AFFIRMS the Report
and Recommendation [ECF No. 34].
“In order to challenge the findings and recommendations of the magistrate judge, a party must
file written objections which shall specifically identify the portions of the proposed findings and
recommendation to which objection is made and the specific basis for objection.” Macort v. Prem, Inc.,
208 F. App’x 781, 783 (11th Cir. 2006) (cleaned up). The objections must also present “supporting
legal authority.” S.D. Fla. L. Mag. J.R. 4(b). Once a district court receives “objections meeting the
specificity requirement set out above,” it must “make a de novo determination of 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.” Macort, 208 F. App’x at 783–84 (cleaned up). To
Case 2:25-cv-14359-DSL Document 41 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/18/2026 Page 1 of 2

2
the extent a party fails to object to parts of the magistrate judge’s report, those portions are reviewed
for clear error. Id. at 784 (cleaned up).
The parties have not submitted any objections to Judge Maynard’s R&R, and the time to do
so has passed. As such, the Court has reviewed the R&R for clear error only. Upon this review, the
Court finds not only no clear error but also notes that Judge Maynard’s R&R is thorough, cogent, and
compelling. The Court adopts the R&R in its entirety.
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
1. 	The Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 34] is ADOPTED
AND AFFIRMED and made a part of this Order for all purposes.
2. 	Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss [ECF No. 13] is GRANTED IN PART and
DENIED IN PART as recommended by Judge Maynard.
2. 	Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint [ECF No. 9] is DISMISSED without prejudice.
3. 	Plaintiff must file a Second Amended Complaint no later than February 24, 2026,
failing which this case will be DISMISSED without further notice.
DONE AND ORDERED in the Southern District of Florida on February 17, 2026.
cc: 	counsel of record
Case 2:25-cv-14359-DSL Document 41 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/18/2026 Page 2 of 2