FRESENIUS VASCULAR CARE, INC.
v.
VASUDEVA
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, granting the unopposed motion for final judgment in garnishment.
Plaintiffs filed a motion for final judgment in garnishment against Bank of America, N.A. The Magistrate Judge recommended granting the unopposed moti…
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 Magistrate Judge'S Report And Recommendation Review cases and more on FLexlaw
and NATIONAL MEDICAL CARE, INC.,
Plaintiffs,
v. Case No. 8:21-cv-1474-VMC-JSS
INDI VASUDEVA and TAMPA RENAL PHYSICIANS, P.L.,
Defendants. _______________________________/
ORDER
This matter comes before the Court upon consideration of United States Magistrate Judge Julie S. Sneed’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. # 100), entered on November 13, 2023, recommending that Plaintiffs’ Unopposed Motion for Final Judgment in Garnishment against Bank of America, N.A. (Doc. 97) be granted. No objections have been filed, and the time for filing objections has lapsed. The Court accepts and adopts the Report and Recommendation and grants the Motion. 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). If a party files a timely and specific objection to a finding of fact by the magistrate judge, the district court must conduct a de novo review with respect to that factual issue. Stokes v. Singletary, 952 F. 2d 1567, 1576 (11th Cir. 1992). 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. # 100) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED. (2) Plaintiffs’ Unopposed Motion for Final Judgment in Garnishment against Bank of America, N.A. (Doc. # 97) is
GRANTED.
(3) The Clerk is directed to enter final judgment in favor of Plaintiffs Fresenius Vascular Care, Inc. and National Medical Care, Inc. and against Garnishee Bank of America, N.A. in the amount of $89,858.87 pursuant to section 77.083 of the Florida Statutes. (4) The Court grants Garnishee Bank of America, N.A.’s request for statutory fees in the amount of $100.00 pursuant to section 77.28 of the Florida Statutes, made payable to Garnishee’s attorneys, Liebler, Gonzalez & Portuondo. DONE and ORDERED in Chambers in Tampa, Florida, this 28th day of November, 2023.
lage 9n. Henenby Couch VIRGINIA M. HERNANDEZ*COVINGTON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Williams v. Louie L. Wainwright, 681 F.2d 732 (11th Cir. 1982)
- Castro Bobadilla v. Reno, 1993 WL 259424 (S.D. Fla. 1993)
- Durham Eldon Stokes v. Singletary, 952 F.2d 1567 (11th Cir. 1992)