Aaron Demore v. Klone Enterprises, John Ganci, and Dana Ganci

S.D. Florida

Aaron Demore v. Klone Enterprises, John Ganci, and Dana Ganci

DecidedDecember 12, 2025

Docket0:16-cv-61647

StatusUnknown

This text of Aaron Demore v. Klone Enterprises, John Ganci, and Dana Ganci (Aaron Demore v. Klone Enterprises, John Ganci, and Dana Ganci) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Aaron Demore v. Klone Enterprises, John Ganci, and Dana Ganci, (S.D. Fla. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO.: 0:16-CV-61647-GAYLES/HUNT

AARON DEMORE,

Plaintiff,

v.

KLONE ENTERPRISES, JOHN GANCI, and DANA GANCI,

Defendants. ______________________________/

ORDER

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Patrick M. Hunt (the “Report”). [ECF No. 96]. On April 14, 2025, Plaintiff, now pro se, filed a letter requesting “a Writ of Garnishment to be immediately executed against Mr. Colon’s employer,” which the Court construes as a Motion for Writ of Garnishment. [ECF No. 88 at 1]. The Court referred the case to Judge Hunt for all post-judgment proceedings. [ECF No. 89]. On November 17, 2025, Judge Hunt issued his Report, recommending that the Court deny the Motion without prejudice. [ECF No. 96]. No party timely filed objections. A district court may accept, reject, or modify a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The objected portions of the report and recommendation 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 objection is 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). Given that the parties have not objected to any portion of the Report, the Court reviewed the Report for clear error. Finding no clear error, the Court agrees with Judge Hunt’s findings and conclusion that the Motion should be denied without prejudice. CONCLUSION Therefore, itis ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: (1) The Report and Recommendation, [ECF No. 96], is ADOPTED in full; (2) Plaintiff's Motion for Writ of Garnishment [ECF No. 88], is DENIED without prejudice. Plaintiff may file a renewed motion within thirty days of the Court’s Order. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this 12th day of December, 2025.

DARRIN P. GAYLES UNITED STATES DISTRACT JUDGE

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO.: 0:16-CV-61647-GAYLES/HUNT

AARON DEMORE,

Plaintiff,

v.

KLONE ENTERPRISES, JOHN GANCI, and DANA GANCI,

Defendants. ______________________________/

ORDER

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Patrick M. Hunt (the “Report”). [ECF No. 96]. On April 14, 2025, Plaintiff, now pro se, filed a letter requesting “a Writ of Garnishment to be immediately executed against Mr. Colon’s employer,” which the Court construes as a Motion for Writ of Garnishment. [ECF No. 88 at 1]. The Court referred the case to Judge Hunt for all post-judgment proceedings. [ECF No. 89]. On November 17, 2025, Judge Hunt issued his Report, recommending that the Court deny the Motion without prejudice. [ECF No. 96]. No party timely filed objections. A district court may accept, reject, or modify a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The objected portions of the report and recommendation 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 objection is 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). Given that the parties have not objected to any portion of the Report, the Court reviewed the Report for clear error. Finding no clear error, the Court agrees with Judge Hunt’s findings and conclusion that the Motion should be denied without prejudice. CONCLUSION Therefore, itis ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: (1) The Report and Recommendation, [ECF No. 96], is ADOPTED in full; (2) Plaintiff's Motion for Writ of Garnishment [ECF No. 88], is DENIED without prejudice. Plaintiff may file a renewed motion within thirty days of the Court’s Order. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this 12th day of December, 2025.

DARRIN P. GAYLES UNITED STATES DISTRACT JUDGE

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Aaron Demore v. Klone Enterprises, John Ganci, and Dana Ganci, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/aaron-demore-v-klone-enterprises-john-ganci-and-dana-ganci-flsd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack