Brown v. Care Front Funding

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION

STEPHANIE BROWN,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 8:22-cv-2408-VMC-JSS

CARE FRONT FUNDING,

Defendant.

_______________________________/ ORDER This matter is before the Court on consideration of United States Magistrate Judge Julie Sneed’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. # 17), filed on April 6, 2023, recommending that Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment (Doc. # 16) be granted in part. As of the date of this Order, no objections have been filed and the time for filing objections has lapsed. The Court accepts and adopts the Report and Recommendation and grants Plaintiff’s Motion as stated herein. Discussion After conducting a careful and complete review of the findings and recommendations, a district judge may accept, reject or modify the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Williams v. Wainwright, 681 F.2d 732 (11th Cir. 1982). In the absence of specific objections, there is no requirement that a district judge review factual findings de novo, Garvey v. Vaughn, 993 F.2d 776, 779 n.9 (11th Cir. 1993), and the court may accept, reject or modify, in whole or in part, the findings and recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The district judge reviews legal conclusions de novo, even in the absence of an objection. See Cooper-Houston v. S. Ry. Co., 37 F.3d 603, 604

(11th Cir. 1994); Castro Bobadilla v. Reno, 826 F. Supp. 1428, 1431-32 (S.D. Fla. 1993), aff’d, 28 F.3d 116 (11th Cir. 1994). After conducting a careful and complete review of the findings, conclusions and recommendations, and giving de novo review to matters of law, the Court accepts the factual findings and legal conclusions of the magistrate judge. Accordingly, it is now ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED: (1) The Report and Recommendation (Doc. # 17) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED. Plaintiff Stephanie Brown’s Motion for Default Judgment (Doc. # 16) is GRANTED in part. (2) The Clerk is directed to enter default judgment in favor

of Stephanie Brown and against Care Front Funding as to Count I of Stephanie Brown’s Complaint (Doc. # 1), in the amount of $1,500 in statutory damages pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 227. (3) Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment as to Count II is DENIED without prejudice. The Court DISMISSES Count II without prejudice. (4) Plaintiff’s request for attorneys’ fees and costs is DENIED without prejudice, subject to Plaintiff’s filing a bill of costs with the Clerk. (5) The Clerk is directed to CLOSE the case. DONE and ORDERED in Chambers in Tampa, Florida, this 26th day of April, 2023.

VIRGINIA M. HERNANDEZ’COVINGTON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE