Schalamar Creek Mobile Homeowner's Association, Inc. v. Adler

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION

SHERRY ATWOOD, JAMES DRISKELL, PHIL FEATHERBAY, DON GLEDHILL, LINDA GLEDHILL, BARB GRIFFIN, JOETTE KELLY, CATHY LISKA, and SCHALAMAR CREEK MOBILE HOMEOWNER’S ASSOCIATION, INC.,

Plaintiffs,

v. Case No. 8:19-cv-291-TPB-AEP

STEVEN ADLER, LORRAINE DEMARCO, R. SCOTT PROVOST, CHARLES CROOK, MARTI NEWKIRK, MUREX PROPERTIES, L.L.C, THE NORTHWESTERN MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, RANDALL KNAPP, OSPREY LINKS, LLC, SCHALAMAR GP, INC., RICHARD LEE, DAVID EASTMAN, and LUTZ, BOBO & TELFAIR, P.A.,

Defendants. ________________________________________/

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION This matter is before the Court on consideration of the report and recommendation of Anthony E. Porcelli, United States Magistrate Judge, entered on August 11, 2022. (Doc. 188). Judge Porcelli recommends that Defendants’ motions for sanctions (Docs. 172, 173, 174, 175, and 176) be denied. On August 17, 2022, Defendants Randall Knapp and Schalamar GP, Inc. filed an objection. (Doc. 189). The other defendants did not file objections, and the time to object has expired. 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 recommendations. 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) (table). Upon due consideration of the record, including Judge Porcelli’s report and recommendation, the Court adopts the report and recommendation. The Court agrees with Judge Porcelli’s well-reasoned factual findings and conclusions, and the objection does not provide a basis for overruling the report and recommendation. Consequently, Consequently, Defendants’ motions for sanctions are denied. Accordingly, it is

ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED: (1) Judge Porcelli’s report and recommendation (Doc. 188) is AFFIRMED and ADOPTED and INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE into this Order for all purposes, including appellate review. (2) Defendants’ motions for sanctions (Docs. 172, 173, 174, 175, and 176) are hereby DENIED. DONE and ORDERED in Chambers, in Tampa, Florida, this 31st day of August, 2022.

Y tid de ) A —~ joe! □ _

TOM BARBER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Page 3 of 3