WEINSTOCK
v.
HARVEY
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 accepted the Magistrate Judge's report and recommendation, denying the plaintiff's motion for default judgment.
Plaintiff moved for default judgment against defendants. The Magistrate Judge recommended denying the motion. The court reviewed the report and recomm…
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 De Novo Review Of Factual Findings (In Absence Of Objections) cases and more on FLexlaw
This matter is before the Court on consideration of United States Magistrate Judge Anthony E. Porcelli’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. # 36), filed on July 23, 2020, recommending that Plaintiff Catherine Weinstock’s Motion for Default Judgment against both Defendants (Doc. # 28) be denied. As of the date of this Order, no objections have been filed and the time for filing objections has lapsed. The Court accepts and adopts the Report and Recommendation and denies Weinstock’s Motion for Default Judgment without prejudice. Discussion 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 recommendation. 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). After conducting a careful and complete review of the findings, conclusions and recommendations, and giving de novo review to matters of law, the Court accepts the factual findings and legal conclusions of the magistrate judge. Accordingly, it is now ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED: (1) The Report and Recommendation (Doc. # 36) is ACCEPTED
and ADOPTED. (2) Plaintiff Catherine Weinstock’s Motion for Default Judgment against both Defendants (Doc. # 28) is DENIED without prejudice. (3) Weinstock may file an amended complaint within 30 days of the date of this Order. DONE and ORDERED in Chambers in Tampa, Florida, this 7th day of August, 2020. fami Ip _Muurrly (noi VIR IA M. HERNANDEZ’COVINGTON
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)
- Williams v. Louie L. Wainwright, 681 F.2d 732 (11th Cir. 1982)
- Castro Bobadilla v. Reno, 1993 WL 259424 (S.D. Fla. 1993)