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, granting the motion for a writ of garnishment.
Petitioner moved for a writ of garnishment against Garnishee Wells Fargo Bank to satisfy an underlying judgment. The Magistrate Judge recommended gran…
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
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [ECF No. 35]
THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation on Petitioner's Motion for Writ of Garnishment (the “Report”) [ECF No. 35], issued on November 30, 2023. On September 21, 2023, Petitioner Nationwide Judgment Recovery, Inc. moved in this Court for the issuance of a writ of garnishment (the “Motion") directed to Garnishee Wells Fargo Bank [ECF No. 28]. On November 30, following referral, Judge Reinhart issued a Report recommending that the Writ be granted [ECF No. 35 p. 3]. Objections to the Report were due on December 13, 2023 [ECF No. 35 p. 4]. No party filed objections, and the time to do so has expired [ECF No. 35 р. 4].
CASE NO. 21-80178-CIV-CANNON/Reinhart
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 of law or fact on the face of the record. Macort, 208 F. App’x at 784; see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
Following review, the Court finds the Report to be well reasoned and correct and finds no clear error of law or fact. For the reasons set forth in the Report [ECF No. 35 pp. 1–3], it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
1. The Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 35] is ACCEPTED. 2. The Motion [ECF No. 28] is GRANTED. 3. On or before February 2, 2024, Wells Fargo is ordered to turn over the money in the two accounts identified in its Answer (totaling $471.76) in partial satisfaction of the underlying judgment [ECF No. 31 (Answer); ECF No. 1 pp. 2–3 (Final Judgment)]. 4. On or before February 7, 2024, Petitioner is ordered to pay Wells Fargo $100 dollars in accordance with Fla. Stat. § 77.28 [ECF No. 35 p. 3]. 5. On or before February 9, 2024, the parties shall file a notice of compliance so the Court may discharge Wells Fargo from further liability under the writ.
2
CASE NO. 21-80178-CIV-CANNON/Reinhart
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Fort Pierce, Florida, this 26th day of January 2024.
cc: counsel of record
AILEEN M. CANNON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
3