GORMAN
v.
STEALTH CONSTRUCTION US, INC.
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 district court adopted a magistrate judge's report and recommendation on a motion for default judgment, granting the motion in part and denying it in part, and awarding plaintiff $102,835.94 in damages.
The district court adopted the magistrate judge's report and recommendation in its entirety, granting plaintiff's motion for default judgment in part and denying it in part, and awarding plaintiff damages of $102,835.94.
“In order to challenge the findings and recommendations of the magistrate judge, a party must file written objections which shall specifically identify the portions of the proposed findings and recommendation to which objection is made and the specific basis for objection.”
Establishes the procedural requirement for objecting to a magistrate judge's report and recommendation
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiff filed a Motion for Default Judgment against Stealth Construction US, Inc. The motion was referred to a magistrate judge for a report and rec…
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 was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Panayotta D. Augustin-Birch for a report and recommendation on Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment (the “Motion”) [ECF No. 14]. [ECF No. 15]. Judge Augustin-Birch has since issued a Report and Recommendation (the “R&R”), recommending that the Motion be granted in part and denied in part. [ECF No. 23]. The parties did not file any objections to the R&R, and the time to do so has passed. After careful review of the filings, the applicable law, and the record, the Court adopts Judge Augustin Birch's R&R in its entirety.
“In order to challenge the findings and recommendations of the magistrate judge, a party must file written objections which shall specifically identify the portions of the proposed findings and recommendation to which objection is made and the specific basis for objection.” Macort v. Prem, Inc., 208 F. App'x 781, 783 (11th Cir. 2006) (cleaned up). The objections must also present “supporting legal authority.”S.D. Fla. L. Mag. J.R. 4(b). Once a district court receives “objections meeting the specificity requirement set out above,” it must “make a de novo determination of those portions of the report to which objection is made and may accept, reject, or modify in whole or in part, the findings
or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” Macort, 208 F. App’x at 783–84 (cleaned up). To the extent a party fails to object to parts of the magistrate judge's report, those portions are reviewed for clear error. Id. at 784 (cleaned up).
The parties have not submitted any objections to Judge Augustin-Birch's R&R, and the time to do so has passed. As such, the Court has reviewed the R&R for clear error only. Upon this review, the Court finds not only no clear error but also notes that Judge Augustin-Birch's R&R is thorough, cogent, and compelling. The Court adopts the R&R in its entirety.
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:
1. Magistrate Judge Augustin-Birch's R&R [ECF No. 23] is AFFIRMED AND
ADOPTED.
2. Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment [ECF No. 14] is GRANTED IN PART and
DENIED IN PART.
3. Plaintiff is entitled to damages of $102,835.94.
4. Final default judgment will be entered by separate order.
DONE AND ORDERED in the Southern District of Florida this February 21, 2025.
DAVID S. LEIBOWITZ
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
cc: counsel of record