Wang v. The Partnerships and Unincorporated Organizations in Schedule A

• Court: District Court, M.D. Florida
• Decided: July 24, 2024
• Docket: 8:23-cv-02787
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION

XIANFENG WANG and JINZHOU TOPFUND INDUSTRY CO. LTD.,

Plaintiffs, v. Case No. 8:23-cv-2787-VMC-AAS THE PARTNERSHIPS AND UNINCORPORATED ASSOCIATIONS IDENTIFIED ON SCHEDULE A and JIN LV,

Defendants. _______________________________/ ORDER This matter is before the Court on consideration of United States Magistrate Judge Amanda A. Sansone’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. # 99), filed on June 25, 2024, recommending that Plaintiff Xianfeng Wang’s Motion for Entry of a Preliminary Injunction as to Defendants Identified on Schedule A (Doc. ## 35, 36) be denied. On July 9, 2024, Mr. Wang filed an objection, arguing that Defendants’ evidence regarding his likelihood of success and irreparable harm lacks substantial merit, and that the public interest weighs in favor of granting a preliminary injunction. (Doc. # 108). Defendants CVNC USA and SOLSHINE responded to the objection on July 23, 2024. (Doc. # 113). The Court accepts and adopts the Report and Recommendation, overrules the objection, and denies the motion for a preliminary injunction. 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).

Upon due consideration of the record, including Judge Sansone’s Report and Recommendation as well as the objection thereto, the Court overrules the objection and adopts the Report and Recommendation. The Court agrees with Judge Sansone’s well-reasoned findings of fact and conclusions of law. The Report and Recommendation thoughtfully addresses the issues presented, and the objection does not provide a basis for rejecting the Report and Recommendation. Accordingly, it is now ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED: (1) The Report and Recommendation (Doc. # 99) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED. (2) Plaintiff Xianfeng Wang’s Motion for Entry of a Preliminary Injunction as to Defendants Identified on Schedule A (Doc. ## 35, 36) is DENIED. DONE and ORDERED in Chambers in Tampa, Florida, this 24th day of July, 2024.

VIRGINIA M. HERNANDEZ*COVINGTON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE