ORSO
v.
DISNER
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 accepted the magistrate judge's report and recommendation to dissolve the writs of garnishment.
The magistrate judge issued a report recommending the dissolution of five pending writs of garnishment. No party filed objections to this report.…
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 Report cases and more on FLexlaw
THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon Magistrate Judge Maynard's Report and Recommendation on Writs of Garnishment (the “Report”), issued on November 21, 2024 [ECF No. 43]. The Report recommends that the five pending writs of garnishment [ECF Nos. 5, 13, 22, 28, 32] be deemed dissolved [ECF No. 43]. No party filed objections to the Report, and the time to do so has expired. Upon review of the pending writs and the Report, the Report
[ECF No. 43] is ACCEPTED, and the writs [ECF Nos. 5, 13, 22, 28, 32] are DISSOLVED for the reasons stated in the Report.
To challenge the findings and recommendations of a magistrate judge, a party must file specific written objections identifying the portions of the proposed findings and recommendation to which objection is made. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); Heath v. Jones, 863 F. 2d 815, 822 (11th Cir. 1989); Macort v. Prem, Inc., 208 F. App'x 781, 784 (11th Cir. 2006). A district court reviews de novo 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. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). To the extent a party fails to object to parts of the magistrate judge's report, the Court may accept the recommendation so long as there is no clear error on the face of the record. Macort, 208 F. App’x at 784. Legal conclusions are reviewed de novo, even in the absence of an objection. See LeCroy v. McNeil, 397 F. App’x 554, 556 (11th Cir. 2010); Cooper-Houston v. S. Ry. Co., 37 F. 3d 603, 604 (11th Cir. 1994).
***
Following review, the Court finds no clear error on the face of the Report and no errors of law. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
1. The Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 43] is ACCEPTED. 2. The outstanding Writs of Garnishment [ECF Nos. 5, 13, 22, 28, 32] are DISSOLVED for the reasons stated in the Report.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Fort Pierce, Florida, this 9th day of December 2024.
AILEEN M. CANNON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
cc: counsel of record 2
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)
- Heath v. Jones, 863 F.2d 815 (11th Cir. 1989)