RONALD E. SHOLES, P.A.

v.

CAMPBELL

THIS CAUSE is before the Court on the Report & Recommendation (Dkt. No. 37; Report) entered by the Honorable Patricia D. Barksdale, United States Magistrate Judge, on February 17, 2022. In the Report, Judge Barksdale recommends that Plaintiff’s Amended Motion for Final Default Against Defaulted Defendants (Dkt. No. 31) be granted; a default judgment be entered against certain Defendants; the case proceed as to the firm and the nondefaulting Defendants with regard to their competing claims to the settlement proceeds; and the remaining parties be directed to provide a joint status report. See Report at 15. The parties that have appeared in this action and Charlene Campbell have waived any objections to the Report, see Joint Notice of Waiver of Objections to Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 38), and no other objections to the Report, timely or untimely, have been filed. The Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by [a] magistrate judge” in a report and recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). If no specific objections to findings of facts are filed, the district court is not required to conduct a de novo review of those findings. See Garvey v. Vaughn, 993 F. 2d 776, 779 n.9 (11th Cir. 1993); see also

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). However, the district court must review legal conclusions de novo. See Cooper-Houston v. S. Ry. Co., 37 F. 3d 603, 604 (11th Cir. 1994); United States v. Rice, No. 2:07-mc-8-FtM-29SPC, 2007 WL 1428615, at * 1 (M.D. Fla. May 14, 2007).

Upon independent review of the file and for the reasons stated in the Magistrate Judge’s Report, the Court will accept and adopt the legal and factual conclusions recommended by the Magistrate Judge. Accordingly, it is hereby

ORDERED: 1. The Report & Recommendation (Dkt. No. 37) is ADOPTED as the opinion of the Court. 2. Plaintiff’s Amended Motion for Final Default Against Defaulted

Defendants (Dkt. No. 31) is GRANTED. 3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter default judgments against Defendants Medig, LLC; Associates MD Billing & Management, LLC;

Surgical Device Exchange, LLC; Collection Associates, LTD; Starke Family Medical Centers, Inc.; Neurology Associates of Starke, Inc.; Graymont Equipment Distribution, LLC; Advance Diagnostic Group, LLC; Radiology Imaging Specialists, LLC; and South Florida Anesthesia & Pain Treatment, P.A., thereby terminating their respective interest, if any, in the settlement proceeds. 4. The Clerk of the Court is further directed to terminate these Defendants from the Court docket. 5. This case will proceed between Plaintiff and the non-defaulting Defendants as to their competing claims to the settlement proceeds deposited into the Court’s registry. 6. No later than April 11, 2022, the remaining parties are directed to file

a joint notice advising the Court of the status of this matter. DONE AND ORDERED at Jacksonville, Florida, this 15th day of March, 2022.

MARCIA MORALES HOWARD

United States District Judge ja Copies to: Counsel of Record Pro Se Parties