Weinstock v. Harvey

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 M. HARVEY, Defendants. ______________________________/ ORDER This matter is before the Court on consideration of United States Magistrate Judge Anthony E. Porcelli’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. # 52), filed on November 13, 2020. Judge Porcelli recommends that Plaintiff Catherine Weinstock’s Second Motion for Default Judgment (Doc. # 50) be granted as to the fraud claim (Count I of the Amended Complaint), denied as to the request for punitive damages, and denied as to the negligence claim (Count II of the Amended Complaint). 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 grants in part Plaintiff Weinstock’s Second Motion for Default Judgment. 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. # 52) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED. (2) Plaintiff Catherine Weinstock’s Second Motion for Default Judgment (Doc. # 50) is GRANTED as to Count I of the Amended Complaint. (3) The Clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of Plaintiff Weinstock and against Defendants Jasen Harvey

and Catharine Harvey as to Count I of the Amended Complaint for compensatory damages in the amount of $93,435.30. (4) Plaintiff Weinstock’s request for punitive damages is DENIED. (5) Plaintiff Weinstock’s Second Motion for Default Judgment (Doc. # 50) is DENIED as to Count II of the Amended Complaint. (6) Count II is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. (7) Upon entry of judgment, the Clerk is directed to CLOSE THE CASE. DONE and ORDERED in Chambers in Tampa, Florida, this 1st day of December, 2020. fan fr. Munahy (noiyh VIR! IA M. HERNANDEZ’COVINGTON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE