WANG
v.
THE PARTNERSHIPS AND UNINCORPORATED ORGANIZATIONS IN SCHEDULE A
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court adopted the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, denying the plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction.
Plaintiff filed a motion for a preliminary injunction. The Magistrate Judge recommended denial. Plaintiff objected, but the court found the objection …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Objections To Magistrate Judge'S Findings cases and more on FLexlaw
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).
1
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
2
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.
Kingii M. Holy Co VIRGINIA M. HERNANDEZ COVINGTON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
3
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Marina Cooper-Houston v. S. Ry. Co., 37 F.3d 603 (11th Cir. 1994)
- Williams v. Louie L. Wainwright, 681 F.2d 732 (11th Cir. 1982)
- Castro Bobadilla v. Reno, 1993 WL 259424 (S.D. Fla. 1993)