ORSO
v.
JOSEPH
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 accepted a magistrate judge's recommendation to dissolve all pending writs of garnishment in this case. The court found that Nationwide Judgment Recovery failed to comply with Florida Statute § 77.07(5), which requires garnishment writs to be moved for dismissal or final judgment within six months, resulting in automatic dissolution of all but one writ.
All pending writs of garnishment are dissolved by operation of law pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 77.07(5), as Nationwide failed to move for dismissal or final judgment within six months for all but one writ.
[1] A district court reviews de novo those portions of a magistrate judge's report to which specific written objections are made.
[2] A district court may accept a magistrate judge's recommendation on portions of a report to which no objection is filed, provided there is no clear error on the face of th…
Previewing 2 of 5 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“while Nationwide Judgment Recovery ('Nationwide') obtained writs of garnishment directed to numerous banks, Nationwide complied with Fla. Stat. § 77.07(5) as to only on writ—the May 11, 2021, Writ to Wells Fargo”
establishes that Nationwide only complied with the statutory requirement for one writ
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceNationwide Judgment Recovery obtained writs of garnishment directed to numerous banks. Nationwide complied with Fla. Stat. § 77.07(5) for only one wri…
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 Dissolution Of Writ cases and more on FLexlaw
THIS MATTER comes before the Court upon Magistrate Judge Ryon M. McCabe's Report and Recommendation (“Report”) as to the disposition of any outstanding writs of garnishment and corresponding answers [ECF No. 45]. The Report recommends that all pending writs be deemed dissolved [ECF No. 45]. Objections to the Report were due on July 29, 2024 [ECF No. 45]. To date, no party has filed objections, and the time to do so has expired.
LEGAL STANDARD
To challenge the findings and recommendations of a magistrate judge, a party must file specific written objections identifying the portions of the proposed findings and recommendation to which objection is made. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); Heath v. Jones, 863 F. 2d 815, 822 (11th Cir. 1989); Macort v. Prem, Inc., 208 F. App’x 781, 784 (11th Cir. 2006). A district court reviews de novo 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.
CASE NO. 21-80145-MC-CANNON
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). To the extent a party fails to object to parts of the magistrate judge's report, the Court may accept the recommendation so long as there is no clear error on the face of the record. Macort, 208 F. App’x at 784. Legal conclusions are reviewed de novo, even in the absence of an objection. See LeCroy v. McNeil, 397 F. App’x 554, 556 (11th Cir. 2010); Cooper-Houston v. S. Ry. Co., 37 F. 3d 603, 604 (11th Cir. 1994).
DISCUSSION
Following review, the Court finds no error in the Report. The Report correctly explains that while Nationwide Judgment Recovery (“Nationwide”) obtained writs of garnishment directed to numerous banks, Nationwide complied with Fla. Stat. § 77.07(5) as to only on writ—the May 11, 2021, Writ to Wells Fargo [ECF No. 45 p. 2]. For all other writs, Nationwide never moved for dismissal or final judgment within six months following the filing of the respective writs; therefore, those writs were automatically dissolved through operation of law, specifically Fla. Stat. § 77.07(5). Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
1. The Report [ECF No. 45] is ACCEPTED.
2. All pending writs are hereby DISSOLVED by operation of law. See Fla. Stat. § 77.07(5).
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Fort Pierce, Florida, this 31st day of July 2024.
AILEEN M. CANNON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
cc: counsel of record
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)
- Heath v. Jones, 863 F.2d 815 (11th Cir. 1989)