SCHALAMAR CREEK MOBILE HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION, INC.
v.
ADLER
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 defendants' motions for sanctions.
Plaintiffs filed a lawsuit, and defendants subsequently filed motions for sanctions. The magistrate judge recommended denying these motions. Defendant…
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 Legal Conclusions cases and more on FLexlaw
This matter is before the Court on consideration of the report and recommendation of Anthony E. Porcelli, United States Magistrate Judge, entered on August 11, 2022. (Doc. 188). Judge Porcelli recommends that Defendants’ motions for sanctions (Docs. 172, 173, 174, 175, and 176) be denied. On August 17, 2022, Defendants Randall Knapp and Schalamar GP, Inc. filed an objection. (Doc. 189). The other defendants did not file objections, and the time to object has expired. 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 recommendations. 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) (table). Upon due consideration of the record, including Judge Porcelli’s report and recommendation, the Court adopts the report and recommendation. The Court agrees with Judge Porcelli’s well-reasoned factual findings and conclusions, and the objection does not provide a basis for overruling the report and recommendation. Consequently, Consequently, Defendants’ motions for sanctions are denied. Accordingly, it is
ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED: (1) Judge Porcelli’s report and recommendation (Doc. 188) is AFFIRMED and ADOPTED and INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE into this Order for all purposes, including appellate review. (2) Defendants’ motions for sanctions (Docs. 172, 173, 174, 175, and 176) are hereby DENIED. DONE and ORDERED in Chambers, in Tampa, Florida, this 31st day of August, 2022.
Y tid de ) A —~ joe! _
TOM BARBER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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)
- Garvey v. Vaughn, 993 F.2d 776 (11th Cir. 1993)
- Williams v. Louie L. Wainwright, 681 F.2d 732 (11th Cir. 1982)
- Castro Bobadilla v. Reno, 1993 WL 259424 (S.D. Fla. 1993)