SALAZAR MORA
v.
VENEGAS
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.
A district court adopted a magistrate judge's report and recommendation granting a judgment creditor's unopposed motion to modify the allocation of funds from a writ of garnishment served on Douglas Elliman. The court found no clear error in the magistrate's analysis and approved the modification of garnishment terms.
The district court adopted the magistrate judge's report and recommendation in full, granted the judgment creditor's motion, and ordered that the terms of the writ of garnishment as to Douglass Elliman Florida, LLC be modified accordingly.
[1] A district court may accept, reject, or modify a magistrate judge's report and recommendation.
[2] Portions of a magistrate judge's report and recommendation to which no specific objection is made are reviewed only for clear error.
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 reports in district courts.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiff Juana Timea Salazar Mora, a judgment creditor, filed an unopposed motion on April 14, 2025, seeking to resolve the allocation of funds relat…
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 Edwin G. Torres (the "Report"). [ECF No. 149]. On April 14, 2025, Plaintiff and Judgment Creditor Juana Timotea Salazar Mora (“Plaintiff” or “Judgment Creditor") filed an Unopposed Motion Resolving Allocation of Funds Relating to Writ of Garnishment Served Upon Douglas Elliman (the “Motion”). [ECF No. 137]. On April 15, 2025, Judge Torres issued his Report recommending the Motion be granted and attached a proposed Order modifying the terms of Judgment Creditor's Writ of Garnishment as to Douglass Elliman Florida, LLC. [ECF Nos. 149, 149-1]. No party objected to the Report.
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 no party has objected to any portion of the Report, the Court reviewed the Report for clear error. Finding no clear error, the Court agrees with Judge Torres' conclusion that the Motion should be granted.
CONCLUSION
Therefore, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
(1) The Report and Recommendation, [ECF No. 149], is ADOPTED in full.
(2) Plaintiff's Motion is GRANTED.
(3) The Court shall separately issue an Order modifying the terms of Judgment Creditor's Writ of Garnishment as to Douglass Elliman Florida, LLC.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this 1st day of October, 2025.
DARRIN P. GAYLES
UNITED STATES DISTRICT 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)