MORALES
v.
TRADEMARK DOUGLAS, LLC
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 recommendation to grant the plaintiff's motion for default judgment.
Plaintiff moved for default judgment, and the Magistrate Judge recommended granting it for $38,251. No parties objected to the recommendation.…
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 28 U.S.C. § 636(B)(1)(C) cases and more on FLexlaw
Before the Court is Plaintiffs Motion for Default Judgment (Doc. 59) and United States Magistrate Judge Kyle C. Dudek's Report and Recommendation (Doc. 60). Judge Dudek recommends that Plaintiffs motion be granted and that the Clerk be directed to enter judgment for Plaintiff in the amount of $38,251. (Doc. 60). No party objected, so the matter is ripe for review.
After conducting a careful and complete review of the findings and recommendations, a district judge “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part," a magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). In the absence of specific objections, there is no requirement that a district judge review the Report and Recommendation de novo. See Garvey v. Vaughn, 993 F. 2d 776, 779 n.9 (11th Cir. 1993). Instead, when parties don't object, a district court need only correct plain error as demanded by the interests of justice. See, e.g., Symonette v. V.A. Leasing Corp., 648 F. App'x 787, 790 (11th Cir. 2016); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150-52 (1985). Plain error exists if (1) “an error occurred”; (2) “the error was plain"; (3) “it affected substantial rights”; and (4) “not correcting the error would seriously affect the fairness of the judicial proceedings.” Farley v. Nationwide Mut. Ins., 197 F. 3d 1322, 1329 (11th Cir. 1999).
After careful consideration and an independent review of the case, the Court finds no plain error. It accepts and adopts the Report and Recommendation in full.
Accordingly, it is now
ORDERED:
1. United States Magistrate Judge Kyle C. Dudek's Report and
Recommendation (Doc. 60) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED and the findings incorporated herein.
2. Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment (Doc. 59) is GRANTED.
3. The Clerk is DIRECTED to enter judgment in favor of Plaintiff in the amount of $38,251. This amount reflects $25,354 in damages ($10,854 as to Count I; $2,640 as to Count II; and $13,360 as to Count III; less $1,500 from a prior settlement) and $12,897 in attorney's fees and costs ($17,397 less $4,500 from a prior settlement).
4. The Clerk is also DIRECTED to deny any pending motions as moot, terminate any deadlines, and close the case.
DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida on April 26, 2024.
SherPolster Rappell
SHERI POLSTER CHAPPELL
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Copies: All Parties of Record
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (U.S. 1985)
- Garvey v. Vaughn, 993 F.2d 776 (11th Cir. 1993)
- Farley v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 197 F.3d 1322 (11th Cir. 1999)