Weinstock v. Harvey

• Court: District Court, M.D. Florida
• Decided: August 7, 2020
• Docket: 8:19-cv-02979
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION

CATHERINE WEINSTOCK,

Plaintiff, v. Case No. 8:19-cv-2979-T-33AEP JASEN LADAIR HARVEY and CATHARINE HARVEY,

Defendants. _______________________________/ ORDER This matter is before the Court on consideration of United States Magistrate Judge Anthony E. Porcelli’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. # 36), filed on July 23, 2020, recommending that Plaintiff Catherine Weinstock’s Motion for Default Judgment against both Defendants (Doc. # 28) be denied. As of the date of this Order, no objections have been filed and the time for filing objections has lapsed. The Court accepts and adopts the Report and Recommendation and denies Weinstock’s Motion for Default Judgment without prejudice. 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). After conducting a careful and complete review of the findings, conclusions and recommendations, and giving de novo review to matters of law, the Court accepts the factual findings and legal conclusions of the magistrate judge. Accordingly, it is now ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED: (1) The Report and Recommendation (Doc. # 36) is ACCEPTED

and ADOPTED. (2) Plaintiff Catherine Weinstock’s Motion for Default Judgment against both Defendants (Doc. # 28) is DENIED without prejudice. (3) Weinstock may file an amended complaint within 30 days of the date of this Order. DONE and ORDERED in Chambers in Tampa, Florida, this 7th day of August, 2020. fami Ip _Muurrly (noi VIR IA M. HERNANDEZ’COVINGTON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE