ALBAN OSIO
v.
MADURO MOROS

S.D. Fla. | 2023-08-06
No. 1:21-cv-20706
District Court, S.D. Florida (2023)

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.

Holding

The court granted the plaintiffs' motion for default judgment against the individual defendants and FARC.

Facts & Procedural History

Plaintiffs moved for default judgment against certain individual defendants and FARC. The motion was referred to a magistrate judge, who recommended g…

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.

Topics
Magistrate Judge'S Report And Recommendation Review Magistrate Judge'S Report And Recommendation Review Default Judgment

Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Magistrate Judge'S Report And Recommendation Review cases and more on FLexlaw

Opinion of the Court

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on Chief Magistrate Judge Edwin G. Torres’s Report and Recommendation (the “Report”), [ECF No. 89], regarding Plaintiffs’ Motion for Default Judgement Against the Individual Defendants1 and FARC (the “Motion”), [ECF No. 70]. On April 3, 2023, the Court granted Plaintiff’s Motion for Referral of Pending Motion [ECF No. 70] for a Default Judgment Against the Individual Defendants and FARC. [ECF No. 80]. The Court subsequently referred the Motion to Judge Torres’, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), for a ruling on the Motion. Id. On July 19, 2023, Judge Torres issued his Report recommending

. |. A sien V 7 DARRIN P. GAYLES ky!

UNITED STATES DISTRICT/JUDGE

Footnotes
1 The Individual Defendants are Nicolás Maduro Moros, Vladimir Padrino Lopez, Maikel Jose Moreno Perez, Nestor Luis Reverol Torres, and Tarek William Saab. that Plaintiffs Motion be granted and Judgment entered. [ECF No. 89]. No objections were filed by either party. A district court may accept, reject, or modify a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Those portions of the report and recommendation to which objections are made are accorded de novo review, if those objections “pinpoint the specific findings that the party disagrees with.” United States v. Schultz, 565 F. 3d 1353, 1360 (11th Cir. 2009); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). Any portions of the report and recommendation to which no specific objections are made are reviewed only for clear error. Liberty Am. Ins. Grp., Inc. v. WestPoint Underwriters, L.L.C., 199 F. Supp. 2d 1271, 1276 (M.D. Fla. 2001); accord Macort v. Prem, Inc., 208 F. App’x 781, 784 (11th Cir. 2006). Having reviewed the Report for clear error, the Court agrees with Judge Torres’s wellreasoned analysis and conclusion that the Motion should be granted. Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: 1. Chief Magistrate Judge Edwin G. Torres’s Report and Recommendation, [ECF No. 89], is AFFIRMED AND ADOPTED and incorporated into this Order by reference. 2. Plaintiffs Motion for Default Judgement Against the Individual Defendants and FARC, [ECF No. 70], is GRANTED. 3. In accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58, final judgment shall be entered separately. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this 4th yom 2023.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw