Provident Bank v. Hill

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION

PROVIDENT BANK,

Plaintiff,

vs. Case No.: 8:12-cv-01663-JDW-AEP

JOHN S. HILL,

Defendant. ________________________________________/

ORDER BEFORE THE COURT is the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge recommending that Provident Bank’s Motion for Final Summary Judgment of Garnishment (Dkt. 95) be granted (Dkt. 99). Defendant has not responded or objected to the Report and Recommendation. A district court may accept, reject or modify a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). In the absence of specific objections, there is no requirement that factual findings be reviewed de novo and the court may accept, reject or modify, in whole or in part, the findings and recommendations. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); Garvey v. Vaughn, 993 F.2d 776, 779 n.9 (11th Cir. 1993). Legal conclusions are reviewed de novo, even in the absence of an objection. See LeCroy v. McNeil, 397 Fed. App’x. 554, 556 (11th Cir. 2010) (citing United States v. Warren, 687 F.2d 347, 348 (11th Cir. 1982)); Cooper-Houston v. S. Ry. Co., 37 F.3d 603, 604 (11th Cir. 1994). After careful review and finding that the legal conclusions in the Report and Recommendation are correct, the Report and Recommendation is accepted, approved and

1 adopted in all respects. Accordingly, Provident Bank’s Motion for Final Summary Judgment of Garnishment (Dkt. 95) is GRANTED. Final Garnishment Judgment in favor of Provident Bank shall enter against one half ($1,198.59) of the sum held in Wells Fargo Bank N.A. checking account -7286, as recommended by the Magistrate Judge. DONE AND ORDERED this 15" day of June, 2022. vat D. WHITTEMORE ed States District Judge

Copies to: Counsel of Record, Defendant