TINDAL
v.
DEFENSE TAX GROUP
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court adopts the magistrate judge's report and recommendation, denying the plaintiff's motion for default judgment without prejudice.
Plaintiff filed a motion for default judgment against defendants. The magistrate judge recommended denying the motion without prejudice and allowing t…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Motion For Default Judgment cases and more on FLexlaw
This matter is before the Court on consideration of the report and recommendation of Julie S. Sneed, United States Magistrate Judge, entered on September 11, 2020. (Doc. 26). Judge Sneed recommends that Plaintiff Terry Tindal’s “Motion for Default Judgment” (Doc. 24) be denied without prejudice and that Plaintiff be given thirty days in which to file an amended motion for default judgment. On September 24, 2020, Plaintiff filed an objection to the report and recommendation. (Doc. 27). After conducting a careful and complete review of the findings and recommendations, a district judge may accept, reject, or modify the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Williams v. Wainwright, 681 F. 2d 732 (11th Cir. 1982). In the absence of specific objections, there is no requirement that a district judge review factual findings de novo, Garvey v. Vaughn, 993 F. 2d 776, 779 n.9 (11th Cir. 1993), and the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings and recommendations. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The district judge reviews legal conclusions de novo, even in the absence of an objection. See Cooper-Houston v. S. Ry. Co., 37 F. 3d 603, 604 (11th Cir. 1994); Castro Bobadilla v. Reno, 826 F. Supp. 1428, 1431-32 (S.D. Fla. 1993), aff’d, 28 F. 3d 116 (11th Cir. 1994) (table). Upon due consideration of the record, including Judge Sneed’s report and recommendation, the Court adopts the report and recommendation. The Court agrees with Judge Sneed’s detailed and well-reasoned factual findings and legal conclusions. The objection does not provide a basis for rejecting the report and recommendation.1 Consequently, Plaintiff’s “Motion for Default Judgment” (Doc. 24) is denied. However, Plaintiff may file an amended motion within thirty days that demonstrates service of process on each defendant. Accordingly, it is ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED: (1) Judge Sneed’s report and recommendation (Doc. 26) is AFFIRMED and ADOPTED and INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE into this Order for all purposes, including appellate review. (2) Plaintiff’s “Motion for Default Judgment” (Doc. 24) is DENIED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE.
(3) Plaintiff is directed to file an amended motion for default judgment, demonstrating service of process on each defendant, on or before December 4,
/ / \ U/ (Sf, | | i. | (Jree ot =. / iw
TOM BARBER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Marina Cooper-Houston v. S. Ry. Co., 37 F.3d 603 (11th Cir. 1994)
- Garvey v. Vaughn, 993 F.2d 776 (11th Cir. 1993)
- Steadroy Williams v. McNEIL, 557 F.3d 1287 (11th Cir. 2009)
- Castro Bobadilla v. Reno, 1993 WL 259424 (S.D. Fla. 1993)