Opinion
2:20-cv-991-JLB-NPM
09-13-2021
UNITED STATES, Plaintiff, v. LIONEL PEQUENO and ALECIA GALLEGOS, Defendants.
ORDER
JOHN L. BADALAMENTI United States District Judge
On August 1, 2021, the Magistrate Judge entered a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) recommending that the United States of America’s motion for default judgment (Doc. 16) be granted. (Doc. 17.) No. objections have been filed and the time to do so has expired. A district judge may accept, reject, or modify the magistrate judge’s R&R. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). In the absence of objections, a district judge is not required to review the factual findings in the report de novo, but legal conclusions are reviewed de novo even without an objection. Id.; Cooper-Houston v. S. Ry. Co., 37 F.3d 603, 604 (11th Cir. 1994); Garvey v. Vaughn, 993 F.2d 776, 779 n.9 (11th Cir. 1993).
After an independent review of the record, and noting that Defendants have not objected, the Court agrees with the R&R. Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 17) is ADOPTED and made part of this Order. The motion for default judgment (Doc. 16) is GRANTED. The Clerk is DIRECTED to enter final default judgment against Lionel Pequeno and Alecia Gallegos as follows: judgment against Lionel Pequeno in the amount of $296,310.27 as of May 15, 2021, plus statutory interest under 26 U.S.C. §§ 6621, 6622 until paid; and the federal tax liens against Lionel Pequeno for the tax years 2008, 2010, 2011, and 2012 are valid and enforceable against the property located at 410 F Road, LaBelle, Florida. The Clerk is further directed to close the file.
“A default judgment must not differ in kind from, or exceed in amount, what is demanded in the pleadings.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(c). Here, the Complaint sought a sum of “$290,819.26 as of September 30, 2020, plus further interest and statutory additions including penalties as allowed by law.” (Doc. 1 at 6.) The motion for default judgment, however, requests “$296,310.27, as of May 15, 2021 . . . .” (Doc. 16 at 10.) Even so, the motion for default judgment and accompanying exhibits make clear that the larger figure (i.e., $296,310.27) is attributable to additional interest and statutory additions as of May 15, 2021. (Id. at 4; Doc. 16-1 at 4, ¶ 9; Doc. 16-6.) Thus, the $296,310.27 sum does not violate Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(c). United States v. Carlson, No. 1:16-cv-2013-AT, 2016 WL 7015694, at *2 n.2 (N.D. Ga. Oct. 26, 2016); United States v. Wagner, No. 2:16-cv-292-FtM-38MRM, 2016 WL 4473471, at *3 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 3, 2016), adopted 2016 WL 4441533 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 23, 2016).
ORDERED at Fort Myers, Florida, on September 13, 2021.