UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

WEST PALM BEACH DIVISION

CASE NO. 22-81549-CIV-CANNON/Reinhart

LORI WEISE,

and other similarly situated individuals,

Plaintiff,

v.

BLUE LINE LAW FIRM PLLC 

and KEVIN J. DRUMMOND, 

Defendants.

_______________________________/

ORDER ACCEPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [ECF No. 45]

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon the Magistrate Judge’s Report and 

Recommendation on the Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendant Blue Line Law Firm PLLC (the 

“Report”) [ECF No. 45]. On November 8, 2023, Defendant Blue Line Law Firm PLLC 

(“Defendant”) filed a Motion to Dismiss (the “Motion”) [ECF No. 38]. On January 5, 2024, 

following referral, Judge Bruce E. Reinhart issued a Report recommending that the Motion be 

granted in part and denied in part [ECF No. 45 p. 8]. Objections to the Report were due on January 

19, 2024 [ECF No. 45 p. 8]. No party filed objections, and the time to do so has expired 

[ECF No. 45 p. 8].1

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 

1 The parties filed Notices informing the Court that neither party intended to object 

[ECF Nos. 46, 47].

Case 9:22-cv-81549-AMC Document 48 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/31/2024 Page 1 of 3
CASE NO. 22-81549-CIV-CANNON/Reinhart

2

(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 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 review, the Court finds the Report to be well reasoned and correct. For the 

reasons set forth in the Report [ECF No. 45 pp. 1–7], it is hereby

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:

1. The Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 45] is ACCEPTED.

2. The Motion [ECF No. 38] is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.

a. Plaintiff’s individual claims may proceed. 

b. Plaintiff’s collective action claim is DISMISSED WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE. 

3. On or before February 19, 2024, Plaintiff shall either (1) file a Notice indicating 

its intent to proceed with the individual claims in the Complaint, consistent with 

the reasoning set forth in the Report; or (2) file an Amended Complaint with 

additional facts supporting a collective action. This will be Plaintiff’s final 

opportunity to plead a collective action claim. 

Case 9:22-cv-81549-AMC Document 48 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/31/2024 Page 2 of 3
CASE NO. 22-81549-CIV-CANNON/Reinhart

3

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Fort Pierce, Florida, this 30th day of January 

2024.

 _________________________________

 AILEEN M. CANNON

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

cc: counsel of record

Case 9:22-cv-81549-AMC Document 48 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/31/2024 Page 3 of 3