shall bar an aggrieved party from attacking the factual findings on appeal and a de novo determination by a district judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72; see also Fed.R.Civ.P. 6; M.D. Fla. R. 4.20. June 6th, 2001. 1 . In arriving at this conclusion, the Court, like Judge McCoun, expresses no opinion on the merits of the Plaintiffs' claims. 2 . Objections, page 4. 3 . Id. 4 . Id., pages 4 and 17. 5 . Response, page 2. 6 . Id., page 22. 7 . To the extent that Judge McCoun's views as to the correctness of the rationale of Castaño differs from this Court's, see Report and Recommendation, page 671, note 21, the Court rejects it. 8 . Report and Recommendation, page 666-67. 9 . Id. 10 . Response, pages 7-10. 11 . See Y.H. Invests., Inc. v. Godales, 690 So.2d 1273, 1277 (Fla. 1997) (<HOLDING>). 12 . Transcript, pages 125-136. 13 .
holding that a woman possessed immunity from criminal prosecution for causing injury or death to her fetus holding immunity from liability is not jurisdictional holding bjecause immunity from liability constitutes an affirmative defense not a jurisdictional bar only immunity from suit is properly before us today holding that individuals immunity from liability did not bar jurys consideration of her fault in causing accident recognizing that under texas law governmental immunity embraces two principles immunity from liability and immunity from suit