Opinion
20-62259-CIV-CANNON/Hunt
10-14-2022
MAKE UP ARTS PRODUCTION CORPORATION, a foreign corporation, Plaintiff, v. MAP USA GROUP, LLC, a Florida Corporation, and FRANCIS YVES BOUILLARD, an individual, Defendants.
ORDER ACCEPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [ECF No. 110]
AILEEN M. CANNON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation on Plaintiff's Amended Motion for Entry of Final Default Judgment (the “Report”) [ECF No. 110], filed on September 9, 2022. On June 27, 2022, Plaintiff filed an Amended Motion for Entry of Final Default Judgment Against Priscilla Jesus De Oliveira (the “Motion”) [ECF No. 106]. On September 9, 2022, following referral, Magistrate Judge Hunt issued a Report recommending that the Court grant the Motion but only after a Clerk's default had been entered against Ms. Oliveira” [ECF No. 110 p. 5]. The Report also recommends that the Court “authorize seizure of the property located at 1101 River Reach Drive, Unit #109, Fort Lauderdale, FL, 33315, after default is entered to permit Make Up Arts to levy upon the property to partially satisfy its outstanding judgment” [ECF No. 110 p. 5].
On January 20, 2022, Third-Party Priscilla Jesus De Oliveira was impleaded for post-judgment supplementary proceedings pursuant to Section 56.29 of the Florida Statutes [ECF No. 72 p. 3].
On September 14, 2022, Plaintiff moved for the entry of a Clerk's default as to Priscila Jesus De Oliveira [ECF No. 111]. The Clerk entered default on September 15, 2022 [ECF No. 113].
Objections to the Report were due on September 23, 2022 [ECF No. 110 p. 6]. No objections have been filed, and the time to do so has expired [ECF No. 110 p. 6].
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. 110 pp. 2-5], it is hereby
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
1. The Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 110] is ACCEPTED.
2. The Motion for [ECF No. 106] is GRANTED.
3. Final judgment will be entered separately pursuant to Rule 58 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 58.
DONE AND ORDERED