MOEBIUS
v.
MOYAL
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 district court approved the Magistrate Judge's report and recommendation, overruling defendants' objections and denying their motions.
Plaintiff sued defendants. A settlement agreement was reached. Defendants sought to quash writs of garnishment and ratify the settlement, but also sou…
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 Vacating Court Orders cases and more on FLexlaw
THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon the Amended Omnibus Report and Recommendation on Defendants’ Motion to Quash Writs of Garnishment and Defendants’ Motion to Ratify, Adopt and Approve Settlement Agreement, entered by Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Becerra on September 2, 2021 (the “Report”) [DE 122]. The Court has conducted a de novo review of Defendants’ Motion to Quash Writs of Garnishment, Vacate Order Granting Leave To Inspect Safe Deposit Box And For Disgorgement Of Funds In Excess Of Settlement Amount [DE 104], Defendants’ Motion to Ratify, Adopt, and Approve Settlement Agreement [DE 117], the Report [DE 122], Defendants’ Objection [DE 126], Plaintiff’s Memorandum in Opposition to Defendants’ Objection [DE 127], and is otherwise fully advised in the premises. A party seeking to challenge the findings in a report and recommendation of a United States Magistrate Judge 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) (quoting Heath v. Jones, 863 F. 2d 815, 822 (11th Cir. 1989)). “It is critical that the objection be sufficiently specific and not a general objection to the report.” Macort, 208 F. App’x at 784
(citing Goney v. Clark, 749 F. 2d 5, 7 (3d Cir. 1984)). If a party makes a timely and specific objection to a finding in the report and recommendation, the district court must conduct a de novo review of the portions of the report to which objection is made. Macort, 208 F. App’x at 783-84; see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The district court 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 784; 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Accordingly, the Court has undertaken a de novo review of the record and the Defendants’ objections. The objections fail to demonstrate any error in the analysis and conclusions of Judge Becerra’s thorough and well-reasoned Report, with which this Court agrees.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: 1. The Magistrate Judge’s Amended Report and Recommendation [DE 122] is hereby APPROVED; 2. Defendants’ Objection [DE 126] are hereby OVERRULED; 3. Defendants’ Motion to Quash Writs of Garnishment, Vacate Order Granting Leave To Inspect Safe Deposit Box And For Disgorgement Of Funds In Excess Of Settlement Amount [DE 104] is DENIED; 4. Defendants’ Motion to Ratify, Adopt, and Approve Settlement Agreement [DE
117] is DENIED; 7. This case shall remain CLOSED. Any pending motions are DENIED AS
MOOT.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Fort Lauderdale, Broward County, Florida, this 17th day of September, 2021.
f a ? ; 2 (F a “4 if { FO etrsnnnnc zd a3 v Py j ‘4 ta ase [...]
VILLIAM P. DIMITROULEAS
United States District Judge Copies furnished to: Counsel of record
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Heath v. Jones, 863 F.2d 815 (11th Cir. 1989)
- Goney v. Clark, 749 F.2d 5 (3d Cir. 1984)