STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY AND STATE FARM FIRE & CASUALTY COMPANY
v.
GOMEZ
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, granting in part and denying in part the motion for final judgments of garnishment.
Plaintiffs State Farm filed a motion for final judgments of garnishment against garnishees J.P. Morgan Chase Bank and First-Citizens Bank & Trust Comp…
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 Clear Error Standard cases and more on FLexlaw
THIS MATTER comes before the Court upon Magistrate Judge Bruce E. Reinhart's Report and Recommendation (“Report”) on the Motion for Final Judgments of Garnishment ("Motion") filed by Plaintiffs, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company and State Farm Fire & Casualty Company (“State Farm”) [ECF No. 48]. The Report recommends that the Court grant in part and deny in part the Motion, which seeks entry of final judgments of garnishment against J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. (“J.P. Morgan”) and First-Citizens Bank & Trust Company (“FCB”) [ECF No. 43]. Objections to the Report were due January 22, 2024 [ECF No. 48]. To date, no party has filed objections, and the time to do so has expired [ECF No. 49 (notice of nonobjection by Plaintiff State Farm); ECF No. 51 (notice of non-objection by Defendant Heldo Gomez)].
CASE NO. 22-81945-CIV-CANNON/Reinhart
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. 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 clear error in the Report. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
1. The Report [ECF No. 48] is ACCEPTED. 2. Plaintiffs' Motion for Final Judgment on Garnishment is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART [ECF No. 43]. 3. Final judgment entered by separate order [ECF No. 52].
4. Order dissolving writ to follow by separate order.
2
CASE NO. 22-81945-CIV-CANNON/Reinhart
2024. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Fort Pierce, Florida, this 27th day of January
AILEEN M. CANNON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
cc: counsel of record
3
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)