REGER
v.
ALL THINGS GEL, LLC
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 the magistrate judge's recommendation and denied plaintiffs' motions for contempt against defendant Cordani, finding no violations of a prior court order regarding YouTube requests and deeming that obligation satisfied.
The court denied the plaintiffs' motions for contempt, agreeing with the magistrate judge that no violations occurred. The court deemed paragraph 3(c)(1) of the May 29, 2024 order satisfied and relieved Cordani of any further obligation to continue making requests to YouTube.
[1] A magistrate judge's factual findings are adopted and incorporated into a district court's opinion when no timely objections are filed.
[2] A district court may conduct a de novo review of a magistrate judge's report and recommendation even when no timely objections are filed.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“As no timely objections were filed, the Magistrate Judge's factual findings in the Report [DE 345] are hereby adopted and deemed incorporated into this opinion.”
Establishes the standard for adopting the magistrate judge's findings when no objections are filed
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiffs filed motions for contempt against defendant Cordani, alleging violations of paragraph 3(c)(1) of a May 29, 2024 court order. A magistrate …
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 Report And Recommendation Review cases and more on FLexlaw
THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Plaintiffs' Motion for Contempt [DE 309] and Plaintiffs' Amended Motion for Contempt [DE 334] (collectively, the “Motions”) and United States Magistrate Judge Ryon M. McCabe's August 22, 2024 Report & Recommendation on DE 334 (the “Report”) [DE 345]. As no timely objections were filed, the Magistrate Judge's factual findings in the Report [DE 345] are hereby adopted and deemed incorporated into this opinion. LoConte v. Dugger, 847 F. 2d 745, 749-50 (11th Cir. 1988), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 958 (1988); RTC v. Hallmark Builders, Inc., 996 F. 2d 1144, 1149 (11th Cir. 1993). The Court notes that Magistrate Judge McCabe held an evidentiary hearing on the Motions on August 19, 2024. See [DE 337].
Although no timely objections were filed, the Court has conducted a de novo review of the Report [DE 345] and record and is otherwise fully advised in the premises. The Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge's analysis and conclusions regarding the alleged violations at issue that forms the basis for Plaintiffs' Motions for Contempt. See [DE 345]. The Court also agrees with the Magistrate Judge's analysis and conclusion regarding deeming paragraph 3(c)(i) of the May 2024 Order satisfied and relieving Cordani of any further obligation to “continue to make requests to YouTube.” See [DE's 282, 345].
Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
1. The Report [DE 345] is hereby APPROVED;
2. The Motions for Contempt [DE's 309, 345] are hereby DENIED;
3. Paragraph 3(c)(i) of the May 29, 2024 Order [DE 282] is hereby deemed satisfied;
4. Peter Cordani is hereby relieved of any further obligations to “continue to make requests to YouTube." See id.
DONE and ORDERED in Chambers at Fort Lauderdale, Broward County, Florida, this 6th day of September, 2024.
WILLIAM P. DIMITROULEAS
United States District Judge
Copies furnished to: Judge McCabe Counsel of Record
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- LoCONTE v. Dugger, 847 F.2d 745 (11th Cir. 1988)
- Resolution Tr. Corp. v. Hallmark Builders, Inc., 996 F.2d 1144 (11th Cir. 1993)
- LoConte v. Dugger, 488 U.S. 958 (U.S. 1988)