From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Think Vacuums, Inc. v. March

United States District Court, Southern District of Florida
Dec 1, 2023
No. 09-61883-CIV-CANNON (S.D. Fla. Dec. 1, 2023)

Opinion

09-61883-CIV-CANNON

12-01-2023

THINK VACUUMS, INC., Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL MARCH, and CENTRAL VACUUM PLANET, Defendants, v. REGIONS BANK, Garnishee.


ORDER ACCEPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [ECF NO. 119]

AILEEN M. CANNON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation on Plaintiff's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (the “Report”) [ECF No. 119]. On September 12, 2023, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (the “Motion”) seeking a final judgment of garnishment against Garnishee Regions Bank [ECF No. 108]. On November 9, 2023, following referral, Judge Hunt issued a Report recommending that the Motion be granted [ECF No. 119]. Objections to the Report were due on November 27, 2023 [ECF No. 119 p. 3]. To date, no party filed objections, and the time to do so has expired [ECF No. 119 p. 3].

On November 10, 2023, Plaintiff filed a Certificate of Service indicating that it had served copies of the Report on Defendant Michael March and affected third-party Emily March's last known address [ECF No. 120].

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 Fed.Appx. 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 Fed.Appx. at 784. Legal conclusions are reviewed de novo, even in the absence of an objection. See LeCroy v. McNeil, 397 Fed.Appx. 554, 556 (11th Cir. 2010); Cooper-Houston v. S. Ry. Co., 37 F.3d 603, 604 (11th Cir. 1994).

Following de novo review, the Court finds the Report to be well reasoned and correct. For the reasons set forth in the Report [ECF No. 119], it is hereby

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:

1. The Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 119] is ACCEPTED.
2. The Motion [ECF No. 108] is GRANTED.
3. Judgment of garnishment is entered in favor of Plaintiff Think Vacuums, Inc. against Garnishee, Regions Bank, in the sum of $7,297.50.
4. Regions Bank is directed to forward the funds to Plaintiff on or before January 4, 2024, payable to Plaintiff's counsel, Bullard Law Trust Account, and mailed to Cesery L. Bullard, Esquire, Bullard Law, 219 East Marks Street, Orlando, Florida 32803.
5. This case shall remain CLOSED.

DONE AND ORDERED.


Summaries of

Think Vacuums, Inc. v. March

United States District Court, Southern District of Florida
Dec 1, 2023
No. 09-61883-CIV-CANNON (S.D. Fla. Dec. 1, 2023)
Case details for

Think Vacuums, Inc. v. March

Case Details

Full title:THINK VACUUMS, INC., Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL MARCH, and CENTRAL VACUUM…

Court:United States District Court, Southern District of Florida

Date published: Dec 1, 2023

Citations

No. 09-61883-CIV-CANNON (S.D. Fla. Dec. 1, 2023)