# Durrenberger

> District Court, S.D. Florida · August 19, 2026

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11422783

## Case

- **Full name:** Eric Philip Durrenberger v. Florida International University Board of Trustees, et al.
- **Court:** District Court, S.D. Florida
- **Decided:** August 19, 2026
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11422783

## Opinion text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case No. 1:25-cv-25316-DPG

ERIC PHILIP DURRENBERGER,

Plaintiff,

v.

FLORIDA INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY
BOARD OF TRUSTEES, et al.,

Defendants.
_______________________________________________/

ORDER

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate
Judge Lisette M. Reid (the “Report”). [ECF No. 15]. On December 19, 2025, the Court referred
the case to Judge Reid for a ruling on all pretrial non-dispositive matters and a report and
recommendation on all dispositive matters. [ECF No. 10]. On April 23, 2026, Plaintiff filed an
Amended Complaint. [ECF No. 14]. On June 30, 2026, Judge Reid issued her Report,
recommending that Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint be dismissed without prejudice. [ECF No. 15].
No party filed objections.
A district court may accept, reject, or modify a magistrate judge’s report and
recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The objected portions of the report and recommendation
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). Given that the parties have not objected to any portion of the Report, the
Court reviewed the Report for clear error. Finding no clear error, the Court agrees with Judge
Reid’s findings and conclusion that Plaintiff's Amended Complaint be dismissed without
prejudice.
CONCLUSION
Therefore, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
(1) The Report and Recommendation, [ECF No. 15], is ADOPTED in full.
(2) Plaintiff's Amended Complaint, [ECF No. 14], is DISMISSED without
prejudice.
(3) On or before September 4, 2026, Plaintiff shall file a Second Amended Complaint.
(4) The Case is CLOSED pending Plaintiff's filing a Second Amended Complaint.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this 19th day of August, 2026.

DARRIN P. GAYLES
UNITED STATES DI CT JUDGE

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11422783. Public record. Not legal advice.