Valley National Bank v. DUTTA HORSE TRANSPORTATION, INC.

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 9:24-cv-81492-LEIBOWITZ/REINHART

VALLEY NATIONAL BANK,

Plaintiff, v.

DUTTA HORSE TRANSPORTATION, INC., ,

Defendants. __________________________/

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon the Report and Recommendation on Cross-Claimant Dutta Horse Transportation’s (“Cross-Claimant”) Motions for Default Judgment [ECF No. 72] (“R&R”), filed on August 25, 2025, recommending that Cross-Claimant’s Motions for Default Judgment (the “Motions”) [ECF Nos. 54, 57] be DENIED. [ECF No. 72 at 1, 3]. Prior to the undersigned presiding over this action, Judge Robin L. Rosenberg referred the Motions to U.S. Magistrate Judge Bruce E. Reinhart for a report and recommendation, consistent with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72, and Rule 1(d) of the Local Magistrate Judge Rules. [ECF No. 59]. No objections to the R&R were filed during the 14-day objection period. After careful review of the filings, applicable law, and the record, the Court adopts Judge Reinhart’s R&R in its entirety. “In order to challenge the findings and recommendations of the magistrate judge, a party must file written objections which shall specifically identify the portions of the proposed findings and recommendation to which objection is made and the specific basis for objection.” Macort v. Prem, Inc., 208 F. App’x 781, 783 (11th Cir. 2006) (cleaned up). The objections must also present “supporting legal authority.” S.D. Fla. L. Mag. J.R. 4(b). Once a district court receives “objections meeting the specificity requirement set out above,” it must “make a de determination of those portions of the report to which objection 1s made and may accept, reject, or modify in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” Macort, 208 F. App’x at 783-84 (cleaned up). To the extent a party fails to object to parts of the magistrate judge’s report, those portions are reviewed for clear error. Id. at 784 (cleaned up). The parties have not submitted any objections to Judge Reinhart’s R&R, and the time to do so has passed. As such, the Court has reviewed the R&R for clear error only. Upon this review, the Court finds not only no clear error but also notes that Judge Reinhart’s R&R is thorough, cogent, and compelling. ‘The Court adopts the R&R in its entirety. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that: 1. Magistrate Judge Reinhart’s R&R [ECF No. 72] is AFFIRMED AND ADOPTED. 2. ‘The Motions for Default Judgment [ECF Nos. 54, 57| ace DENIED without prejudice. 3. The Clerk’s default [ECF No. 51] shall be VACATED.

DONE AND ORDERED in the Southern District of Florida on September 9, 2025. □ ee oO UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

cc: counsel of record