Opinion
2:22-cv-77-JES-KCD
07-30-2024
BRAD WARRINGTON, Plaintiff, v. RAKESH PATEL and ROCKY PATEL PREMIUM CIGARS, INC., Defendants.
Hon. Kyle C. Dudek United States Magistrate Judge
OPINION AND ORDER
JOHN E. STEELE SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
This matter is before the Court on consideration of the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (Doc. #279), filed on July 3, 2024, under seal recommending that plaintiff's (sealed) Motion to Appoint Receiver or Conservator (Doc. #179) be denied. No objections have been filed and the time to do so has expired.
After conducting a careful and complete review of the findings and recommendations, a district judge may accept, reject or modify the magistrate judge's report and recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Williams v. Wainwright, 681 F.2d 732 (11th Cir. 1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1112 (1983). In the absence of specific objections, there is no requirement that a district judge review factual findings de novo, Garvey v. Vaughn, 993 F.2d 776, 779 n.9 (11th Cir. 1993), and the court may accept, reject or modify, in whole or in part, the findings and recommendations. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The district judge reviews legal conclusions de novo, even in the absence of an objection. See Cooper-Houston v. Southern Ry. Co., 37 F.3d 603, 604 (11th Cir. 1994); Castro Bobadilla v. Reno, 826 F.Supp. 1428, 1431-32 (S.D. Fla. 1993), aff'd, 28 F.3d 116 (11th Cir. 1994) (Table).
The Magistrate Judge found that plaintiff had not established that Patel was wasting company assets to the requisite degree of certainty for an appointment. The Magistrate Judge further found that plaintiff had not shown that he would be irreparably damaged in the absence of a receiver, or that money damages will be inadequate. The Magistrate Judge noted that a “far less drastic mechanism is available to investigate any financial discrepancies-discovery.” (Doc. #279 at 6.) After conducting an independent examination of the file and upon due consideration of the Report and Recommendation, the Court accepts the Report and Recommendation of the magistrate judge.
Accordingly, it is now
ORDERED:
1. The Report and Recommendation (Doc. #279) is hereby adopted, and the findings incorporated herein.
2. Plaintiff's Motion to Appoint Receiver or Conservator (Doc. #179) is DENIED.
DONE and ORDERED.