Alban Osio v. Maduro Moros

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO.: 1:21-cv-20706-GAYLES/TORRES

MEUDY ALBÁN OSIO in her personal capacity and in her capacity as the personal representative of the Estate of FERNANDO ALBERTO ALBÁN, FERNANDO ALBÁN OSIO, and MARIA FERNANDA ALBÁN OSIO,

Plaintiffs, v.

NICOLAS MADURO MOROS; FUERZAS ARMADAS REVOLUCIONARIAS DE COLOMBIA (“FARC”); THE CARTEL OF THE SUNS A.K.A. CARTEL DE LOS SOLES; VLADIMIR PADRINO LOPEZ; MAIKEL JOSE MORENO PEREZ; NESTOR LUIS REVEROL TORRES; and TAREK WILLIAM SAAB,

Defendants. ___________________________________/

ORDER

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

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 well- reasoned 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.

. |. □ A sien V 7 DARRIN P. GAYLES ky! UNITED STATES DISTRICT/JUDGE