VALLEY NATIONAL BANK
v.
DUTTA HORSE TRANSPORTATION, INC.
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.
Valley National Bank appeals a magistrate judge's recommendation to deny Dutta Horse Transportation's motions for default judgment. The district court adopted the magistrate judge's report and recommendation in full, denying the default judgment motions and vacating the clerk's entry of default.
The district court affirmed and adopted the magistrate judge's report and recommendation in its entirety, denied the motions for default judgment without prejudice, and vacated the clerk's default entry.
“In order to challenge the findings and recommendations of the magistrate judge, a party must file written objections which shall specifically identify the portions of the proposed findings and recommendation to which objection is made and the specific basis for objection.”
Establishes the standard for objecting to magistrate judge reports
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCross-Claimant Dutta Horse Transportation filed motions for default judgment against certain parties. The magistrate judge recommended denying these m…
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 Objections To Magistrate Judge'S Findings cases and more on FLexlaw
THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon the Report and Recommendation on Cross-Claimant Dutta Horse Transportation's (“Cross-Claimant”) Motions for Default Judgment [ECF No. 72] (“R&R"), filed on August 25, 2025, recommending that Cross-Claimant's Motions for Default Judgment (the “Motions”) [ECF Nos. 54, 57] be DENIED. [ECF No. 72 at 1, 3]. Prior to the undersigned presiding over this action, Judge Robin L. Rosenberg referred the Motions to U.S. Magistrate Judge Bruce E. Reinhart for a report and recommendation, consistent with 28 U.S.C. S 636(b)(1)(B), Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72, and Rule 1(d) of the Local Magistrate Judge Rules. [ECF No. 59]. No objections to the R&R were filed during the 14-day objection period. After careful review of the filings, applicable law, and the record, the Court adopts Judge Reinhart's R&R in its entirety.
“In order to challenge the findings and recommendations of the magistrate judge, a party must file written objections which shall specifically identify the portions of the proposed findings and recommendation to which objection is made and the specific basis for objection.” Macort v. Prem, Inc., 208 F. App'x 781, 783 (11th Cir. 2006) (cleaned up). The objections must also present “supporting legal authority.” S.D. Fla. L. Mag. J.R. 4(b). Once a district court receives “objections meeting the specificity requirement set out above,” it must “make a de novo determination of those portions of the report to which objection is made and may accept, reject, or modify in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” Macort, 208 F. App’x at 783–84 (cleaned up). To the extent a party fails to object to parts of the magistrate judge's report, those portions are reviewed for clear error. Id. at 784 (cleaned up).
The parties have not submitted any objections to Judge Reinhart's R&R, and the time to do so has passed. As such, the Court has reviewed the R&R for clear error only. Upon this review, the Court finds not only no clear error but also notes that Judge Reinhart's R&R is thorough, cogent, and compelling. The Court adopts the R&R in its entirety.
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that:
1. Magistrate Judge Reinhart's R&R [ECF No. 72] is AFFIRMED AND ADOPTED. 2. The Motions for Default Judgment [ECF Nos. 54, 57] are DENIED without prejudice. 3. The Clerk's default [ECF No. 51] shall be VACATED.
DONE AND ORDERED in the Southern District of Florida on September 9, 2025.
DAVID S. LEIBOWITZ
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE cc: counsel of record