LEONOVICZ

v.

ALL POTENTIAL

M.D. Fla. | 2022-11-29

No. 2:22-cv-00219

District Court, M.D. Florida (2022)

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.

Holding

The court adopted the Magistrate Judge's recommendation to enter default judgment in favor of the Petitioner and close the case.

Facts & Procedural History

Petitioner sought to enter a default against parties who failed to file claims or answers in a limitation of liability proceeding. The Magistrate Judg…

The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Topics

Report And Recommendation Review Plain Error Standard Limitation Of Liability De Novo Review

Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Report And Recommendation Review cases and more on FLexlaw

Opinion of the Court

ORDER1

Before the Court is United States Magistrate Judge Nicholas P. Mizell’s Report and Recommendation (R&R). (Doc. 32). Petitioner Brian Leonovicz moved the Court to enter a default against all persons and entities who have failed to file claims or answers and bar the filing of any further claims or answers in this or any proceeding related to or arising out of the events described in the petition. (Doc. 15). Judge Mizell recommends entering default judgment in favor of Petitioner, dismissing as moot the claims asserted, and directing the clerk to close the case. The time to object to the R&R has expired and no party objects. (Doc. 33). So the R&R is ripe for review.

Court finds no plain error. So it accepts and adopts the R&R in full. Accordingly, it is now ORDERED: United States Magistrate Judge Nicholas P. Mizell’s Report and

Recommendation (Doc. 32) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED, and the findings incorporated herein. 1. Petitioner Brian Leonovicz’s Motion for Entry of Default (Doc. 15) is

GRANTED.

2. The Clerk is DIRECTED to enter judgment in favor of Petitioner, deny all pending motions as moot, terminate all deadlines, and close the case. DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida on November 28, 2022.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Copies: All Parties of Record

Footnotes

1 Disclaimer: Papers hyperlinked to CM/ECF may be subject to PACER fees. By using hyperlinks, the Court does not endorse, recommend, approve, or guarantee any third parties or their services or products, nor does it have any agreements with them. The Court is not responsible for a hyperlink’s functionality, and a failed hyperlink does not affect this Order. 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 do not 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

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)

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw