MAKE UP ARTS PRODUCTION CORPORATION
v.
MAP USA GROUP, 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 Court accepts the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, granting Plaintiff's motion for default judgment.
Plaintiff filed a motion for default judgment against a third-party, Priscilla Jesus De Oliveira, who was impleaded for post-judgment supplementary pr…
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 Federal Rule Of Civil Procedure 72(B)(3) cases and more on FLexlaw
________________________________/ ORDER ACCEPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [ECF No. 110]
THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation on Plaintiff’s Amended Motion for Entry of Final Default Judgment (the “Report”) [ECF No. 110], filed on September 9, 2022. On June 27, 2022, Plaintiff filed an Amended Motion for Entry of Final Default Judgment Against Priscilla Jesus De Oliveira (the “Motion”) [ECF No. 106].1 On September 9, 2022, following referral, Magistrate Judge Hunt issued a Report recommending that the Court grant the Motion but only after a Clerk’s default had been entered against Ms. Oliveira” [ECF No. 110 p. 5]. The Report also recommends that the Court “authorize seizure of the property located at 1101 River Reach Drive, Unit #109, Fort
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). Following de novo review, the Court finds the Report to be well reasoned and correct. For the reasons set forth in the Report [ECF No. 110 pp. 2–5], it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: 1. The Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 110] is ACCEPTED. 2. The Motion for [ECF No. 106] is GRANTED.
3. Final judgment will be entered separately pursuant to Rule 58 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 58. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Fort Pierce, Florida this 14th day of October 2022.
AILEEN CANNON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
ce: 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)