Alban Osio v. Maduro Moros

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

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

MEUDY ALBAN OSIO, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

NICOLAS MADURO MOROS, et al.,

Defendants. ______________________________________/

ORDER

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on Chief Magistrate Judge Edwin G. Torres’ Report and Recommendation on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Turnover Judgment as to Blocked Funds (the “Report”). [ECF No. 174]. On September 10, 2024, Plaintiffs filed their Motion for a Final Turnover Judgment as to Certain Additional Blocked Funds per ECF No. 101 (the “Motion”). [ECF No. 155]. No response or objection has been filed by Defendants or any non-party.1 On September 12, 2024, the Court referred the Motion to Judge Torres for a ruling. [ECF No. 159]. On September 27, 2024, Plaintiffs filed their Supplement to the Motion certifying that Plaintiffs conferred with Italbank and that the Motion was served upon Italbank. [ECF No. 172]. On October 1, 2024, Judge Torres issued his Report recommending that the Court grant Plaintiffs’ Motion. [ECF No. 174]. No objections to the Report were filed.

1 Garnishee Italbank International, Inc. (“Italbank”), a third-party holder of the at-issue funds, did file an answer to Plaintiffs’ Writ of garnishment, which is related to the Motion. [ECF No. 136]. 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). This Court finds no clear error with Judge Torres’ well-reasoned analysis and agrees that the Motion should be granted. Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: 1. Chief Magistrate Judge Edwin G. Torres’ Report and Recommendation on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Turnover Judgment as to Blocked Funds, [ECF No. 174], is AFFIRMED AND ADOPTED, and incorporated into this Order by reference; 2. Plaintiffs’ Motion for a Final Turnover Judgment as to Certain Additional Blocked Funds per ECF No. 101, [ECF No. 155], is GRANTED; and 3. Italbank shall disburse to Plaintiffs’ counsel the subject funds, i.e., the $244,712.33 that Italbank has represented it holds in the Instituto Aueropuerto de Maiquetia’s name via a CD account, and the $252,030.00 Italbank has represented it holds in the Instituto Aueropuerto de Maiquetia name via a checking account. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this 17th day of October, 2024.

) 4 / D IN P. GAYLES UNITED STATES DISIRACT JUDGE