AGUILERA
v.
JM CELL LLC

S.D. Fla. | 2023-10-02
No. 21-62398-CIV
2018 WL 4929756 District Court, S.D. Florida (2023) Positive Treatment
Cited by 1 case

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.

Holding

The Court adopted the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, denying the Defendants' motion to vacate the judgment and for an evidentiary hearing.

Facts & Procedural History

Defendants filed a motion to vacate a judgment pursuant to Rule 60(b)(4) and requested an evidentiary hearing. The Magistrate Judge recommended denyin…

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.

Topics
De Novo Review Of Magistrate Judge'S Report Magistrate Judge'S Report And Recommendation Evidentiary Hearing De Novo Review

Explore caselaw by topic → Browse De Novo Review Of Magistrate Judge'S Report cases and more on FLexlaw

Opinion of the Court

THIS CAUSE came before the Court on Defendants’ Objections [ECF No. 86] to Magistrate Judge Jared M. Strauss’s Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 85]. In his Report, Judge Strauss recommends the Court deny Defendants’ Motion to Vacate Judgment Pursuant to Rule 60(b)(4) and for an Evidentiary Hearing [ECF No. 77]. Having reviewed the Report, the Motion to Vacate and the entire record, and the Objections; and having made a de novo determination1 with respect to those portions of the Report to which Defendants formally objected, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 85] is AFFIRMED AND ADOPTED. Defendants’ Motion to Vacate Judgment Pursuant to Rule 60(b)(4) and for an Evidentiary Hearing [ECF No. 77] is DENIED.

CASE NO. 21-62398-CIV-ALTONAGA

DONE AND ORDERED in Miami, Florida, this 2nd day of October, 2023.

locts UW. AE

CECILIA M. ALTONAGA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

ce: counsel of record

Footnotes
1 “The Court need not do over every step done by a magistrate judge on which there was some objection. De novo review means review without any deference; it does not mean that a district judge must redo the case without consideration of what the magistrate judge has written.” DeJonge v. Burton, No. 1:16-cv-980, 2018 WL 4929756, at *1 (W.D. Mich. Oct. 11, 2018) (quotation marks and citation omitted).

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • Aguilera v. JM Cell LLC, 2018 WL 4929756 (S.D. Fla. 2023)
    …dge on which there was some objection. De novo review means review without any deference; it does not mean that a district judge must redo the case without consideration of what the magistrate judge has written.” DeJonge v. Burton, No. 1:16-cv-980, 2018 WL 4929756, at *1 (W.D. Mich. Oct. 11, 2018) (quotation marks and citation omitted). CASE NO. 21-62398-CIV-ALTONAGA DONE AND ORDERED in Miami, Florida, this 2nd day of October, 2023. locts UW. AE CECILIA M. ALTONAGA UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE ce: c…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw