IN THE MATTER OF: THE COMPLAINT OF AWE WATERSPORTS, LLC, AS OWNER OF THE 2019, 10'7" SEA DOO, PERSONAL WATERCRAFT, BEARING HULL IDENTIFICATION NUMBER YDV47195B919 AND REGISTRATION NUMBER FL9

M.D. Fla. | 2022-02-25

No. 2:21-cv-259

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 against non-appearing claimants.

Facts & Procedural History

Petitioner sought exoneration from or limitation of liability in an admiralty action. The magistrate judge recommended entering final default judgment…

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 De Novo Review

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

Opinion of the Court

Claimants. /

ORDER1

Before the Court is United States Magistrate Judge Mac R. McCoy’s Report and Recommendation. (Doc. 68). Judge McCoy recommends the Court enter final default judgment against all non-appearing potential claimants in this admiralty action. There are no objections to the Report and Recommendation, and the time to do so has expired.

Court finds no plain error. So it accepts and adopts the Report and Recommendation in full. Accordingly, it is now ORDERED:

1. The Report and Recommendation (Doc. 68) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED, and the findings incorporated herein. 2. Petitioner’s Motion for Entry of Final Default Judgment Against Non- Responding Claimants (Doc. 61) is GRANTED. 3. The Clerk is DIRECTED to enter default judgment against all

persons and entities that have not filed a claim in this action by the July 6, 2021 deadline. DONE AND ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida on February 25, 2022.

, Lh platrathe 7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Copies: Counsel of Record

Footnotes

1 Disclaimer: Documents hyperlinked to CM/ECF are subject to PACER fees. By using hyperlinks, the Court does not endorse, recommend, approve, or guarantee any third parties or the services or products they provide. The Court is also not responsible for a hyperlink’s availability and 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 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

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)

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw