Orso v. Disner

• Court: District Court, S.D. Florida
• Decided: January 26, 2024
• Docket: 9:21-cv-80178
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA WEST PALM BEACH DIVISION

CASE NO. 21-80178-CIV-CANNON/Reinhart

MATTHEW E. ORSO in his capacity as Court-Appointed Successor Receiver for Rex Venture Group, LLC, d/b/a Zeekrewards.Com,

Plaintiff,

v.

JUANDERLINE MARSAILLE,

Defendant,

AFFIX TAX SOLUTIONS, LLC,

Garnishee. ______________________________________________/

ORDER ACCEPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [ECF No. 35]

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation on Petitioner’s Motion for Writ of Garnishment (the “Report”) [ECF No. 35], issued on November 30, 2023. On September 21, 2023, Petitioner Nationwide Judgment Recovery, Inc. moved in this Court for the issuance of a writ of garnishment (the “Motion”) directed to Garnishee Wells Fargo Bank [ECF No. 28]. On November 30, following referral, Judge Reinhart issued a Report recommending that the Writ be granted [ECF No. 35 p. 3]. Objections to the Report were due on December 13, 2023 [ECF No. 35 p. 4]. No party filed objections, and the time to do so has expired [ECF No. 35 p. 4]. 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 of law or fact on the face of the record. Macort, 208 F. App’x at 784; see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Following review, the Court finds the Report to be well reasoned and correct and finds no clear error of law or fact. For the reasons set forth in the Report [ECF No. 35 pp. 1–3], it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: 1. The Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 35] is ACCEPTED. 2. The Motion [ECF No. 28] is GRANTED.

3. On or before February 2, 2024, Wells Fargo is ordered to turn over the money in the two accounts identified in its Answer (totaling $471.76) in partial satisfaction of the underlying judgment [ECF No. 31 (Answer); ECF No. 1 pp. 2–3 (Final Judgment)]. 4. On or before February 7, 2024, Petitioner is ordered to pay Wells Fargo $100 dollars in accordance with Fla. Stat. § 77.28 [ECF No. 35 p. 3]. 5. On or before February 9, 2024, the parties shall file a notice of compliance so the Court may discharge Wells Fargo from further liability under the writ. CASE NO. 21-80178-CIV-CANNON/Reinhart

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Fort Pierce, Florida, this 26th day of January 2024.

AILEE CANNON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

ce: counsel of record