Page:Nealy v. Atlantic Recording.pdf/1



SHERMAN NEALY, et al.,


 * Plaintiffs,

v.

ATLANTIC RECORDING CORP., et al.,


 * Defendants.

_________________________________/

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Becerra’s Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 224] (“Report”), entered on March 8, 2021. The Report recommends that the Court: (1) deny Defendants’ Motion to Strike Plaintiffs’ Response to Defendants’ Statement of Material Facts [ECF No. 193]; (2) grant Defendants’ Motion to Strike Affidavits of Stevens, Knox, and Baker [ECF No. 194]; (3) grant in part and deny in part Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 166]; and (4) deny Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment [ECF No. 175]. See Rep. at 2. Both parties filed objections to the Report [ECF Nos. 248 and 249].

The 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 to which objections are made are accorded de novo review so long as 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 to which no specific objection is made are reviewed only for