IN RE: TAIL WALKER, A 2020 COBIA MOTOR VESSEL BEARING HULL IDENTIFICATION NUMBER CBABA018A020 AND FLORIDA REGISTRATION FL FL0054SP

M.D. Fla. | 2022-11-09
No. 2:22-cv-332
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 Report and Recommendation, granting the Petitioner's motion for default judgment of exoneration.

Facts & Procedural History

Petitioners filed a motion for default judgment of exoneration or limitation of liability. The Magistrate Judge recommended granting the motion agains…

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.

Topics
Exoneration From Or Limitation Of Liability Petition For Exoneration From Or Limitation Of Liability Report And Recommendation Review Plain Error Standard

Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Exoneration From Or Limitation Of Liability cases and more on FLexlaw

Opinion of the Court

and FREEDOM BOAT CLUB, LLC,

Petitioners,

v. Case No.: 2:22-cv-332-SPC-NPM

JOHN NITTOLO and UNKNOWN

POTENTIAL CLAIMANTS

/

OPINION AND ORDER1

Before the Court is Petitioner Freedom Marine Sales, LLC’s Motion for Entry of Final Default Judgement Against All Persons and Entities Who Did Not Respond to the Petition for Exoneration or Limitation (Doc. 24) and United States Magistrate Judge Nicholas P. Mizell’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 29). Judge Mizell recommends granting the Petitioner’s Motion and directing the clerk to enter a default judgment of exoneration in favor of Petitioners against all potential claimants except John Nittolo. (Doc. 29). No party objected, so the matter is ripe for review.

Court finds no plain error. The Court has conducted its own Rule 54(b) analysis and concluded that there is no just reason for delay. Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b). The Court thus accepts and adopts the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 29) in full.

Accordingly, it is now ORDERED: 1. United States Magistrate Judge Nicholas P. Mizell’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 29) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED and the findings incorporated herein. 2. The Petitioner’s Motion for Entry of Final Default Judgment Against All Persons and Entities Who Did Not Respond to the Petition for Exoneration or Limitation (Doc. 24) is GRANTED. 3. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to enter default judgment against all claimants who have not timely filed claims or responded to the Complaint for Exoneration from or Limitation of Liability. (Doc. 1). DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida on November 9, 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,” the 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

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw