AARON DEMORE
v.
KLONE ENTERPRISES, JOHN GANCI, AND DANA GANCI
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 district court adopted a magistrate judge's recommendation and denied plaintiff's motion for a writ of garnishment without prejudice, allowing plaintiff to file a renewed motion within thirty days.
The court denied plaintiff's motion for a writ of garnishment without prejudice, adopting the magistrate judge's recommendation in full and permitting plaintiff to file a renewed motion within thirty days.
[1] A district court reviews portions of a magistrate judge's report and recommendation for clear error when no party timely files objections.
[2] A motion for a writ of garnishment may be denied without prejudice.
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“A district court may accept, reject, or modify a magistrate judge's report and recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).”
Establishes the standard of review for magistrate judge recommendations
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiff Aaron Demore, proceeding pro se, filed a letter on April 14, 2025, requesting a writ of garnishment to be executed against someone's employe…
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 Writ Of Garnishment cases and more on FLexlaw
THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Patrick M. Hunt (the “Report”). [ECF No. 96].
On April 14, 2025, Plaintiff, now pro se, filed a letter requesting “a Writ of Garnishment to be immediately executed against Mr. Colon’s employer,” which the Court construes as a Motion for Writ of Garnishment. [ECF No. 88 at 1]. The Court referred the case to Judge Hunt for all post-judgment proceedings. [ECF No. 89]. On November 17, 2025, Judge Hunt issued his Report, recommending that the Court deny the Motion without prejudice. [ECF No. 96]. No party timely filed objections. A district court may accept, reject, or modify a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).
The objected portions of the report and recommendation are accorded de novo review if those objections “pinpoint the specific findings that the party disagrees with.” United States v. Schultz, 565 F. 3d 1353, 1360 (11th Cir. 2009); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). Any portions of the report and recommendation to which no specific objection is made are reviewed only for clear error. Liberty Am. Ins. Grp., Inc. v. WestPoint Underwriters, L.L.C., 199 F. Supp. 2d 1271, 1276 (M.D. Fla. 2001); accord Macort v. Prem, Inc., 208 F. App’x 781, 784 (11th Cir. 2006). Given that the parties have not objected to any portion of the Report, the Court reviewed the Report for clear error. Finding no clear error, the Court agrees with Judge Hunt’s findings and conclusion that the Motion should be denied without prejudice.
CONCLUSION
Therefore, itis ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: (1) The Report and Recommendation, [ECF No. 96], is ADOPTED in full; (2) Plaintiff's Motion for Writ of Garnishment [ECF No. 88], is DENIED without prejudice. Plaintiff may file a renewed motion within thirty days of the Court’s Order. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this 12th day of December, 2025.
DARRIN P. GAYLES
UNITED STATES DISTRACT JUDGE
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- United States v. Schultz, 565 F.3d 1353 (11th Cir. 2009)
- Liberty Am. Ins. Grp., Inc. v. Westpoint Underwriters, L.L.C., 2001 WL 1850837 (M.D. Fla. 2001)