UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

FORT PIERCE DIVISION

CASE NO. 22-14398-CIV-CANNON/McCabe

RENEE HELMKE,

 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

CITY OF PORT ST. LUCIE, 

Defendant.

_______________________________/ 

ORDER ACCEPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [ECF No. 19] 

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

Recommendation on Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint (the “Report”) 

[ECF No. 19], issued on April 11, 2023. On February 3, 2023, Defendant filed a Motion to 

Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint (the “Motion”) [ECF No. 11]. On April 11, 2023, following referral, 

Judge McCabe issued a Report recommending that the Motion be granted in part and denied in 

part [ECF No. 19 pp. 1, 11]. Objections to the Report were due on April 25, 2023 [ECF No. 19 

p. 11]. No party filed objections, and the time to do so has expired [ECF No. 19 p. 11].

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 

(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, 

Case 2:22-cv-14398-AMC Document 20 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/01/2023 Page 1 of 3
CASE NO. 22-14398-CIV-CANNON/McCabe

2 

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

the reasons set forth in the Report [ECF No. 19 pp. 4–10], it is hereby 

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: 

1. The Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 19] is ACCEPTED. 

2. The Motion [ECF No. 11] is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART as 

follows: 

a. As to Count I, the Motion is DENIED as to Defendant’s failure to 

accommodate Plaintiff’s December 2021 request to work remotely but 

GRANTED as to all other requests for accommodation. 

b. As to Count II, the Motion is GRANTED. Count II of Plaintiff’s Amended 

Complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

1

c. As to Count III, the Motion is DENIED as to Plaintiff’s discharge but 

GRANTED as to all other allegedly adverse employment actions. 

3. On or before May 15, 2023, Defendant shall file an Answer to Counts I and III in the 

Amended Complaint as narrowed by the adopted Report and Recommendation

[ECF No. 19]. 

1 Plaintiff previously filed an Amended Complaint in response to an earlier Motion to Dismiss 

[ECF No. 9] and provides no basis upon which to consider a further amendment [see ECF No. 14]. 

Case 2:22-cv-14398-AMC Document 20 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/01/2023 Page 2 of 3
CASE NO. 22-14398-CIV-CANNON/McCabe

3

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Fort Pierce, Florida, this 1st day of May 2023.

 _________________________________

 AILEEN M. CANNON

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

cc: counsel of record

Case 2:22-cv-14398-AMC Document 20 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/01/2023 Page 3 of 3