Summary
applying preponderance standard in accordance with Florida law
Summary of this case from D.B.C. Corp. v. Nucita Venezolana, C.A.Opinion
CASE NO. 8:06-CIV-2340-T-17-MAP.
August 25, 2008
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
This cause is before the Court on the report and recommendation (R R) issued by Magistrate Judge Mark A. Pizzo on June 13, 2008 (Docket No. 139) The magistrate judge recommended that the Court grant the defendants' motion to enforce settlement agreement and that the defendants should pay the Plaintiff $45,000.00 no later than ten days from the date of any order adopting the report and recommendation, with each party to bear it's own costs and attorney's fees.
Pursuant to Rule 6.02, Rules of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, the parties had ten (10) days after service to file written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations, or be barred from attacking the factual findings on appeal. Nettles v. Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404 (5th Cir. 1982) (en banc). The plaintiff filed pro se objections to the report and recommendation which is merely a letter stating that she objects to the findings of fact without any specification of what is wrong with the findings of fact.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
When a party makes a timely and specific objection to a finding of fact in the report and recommendation, the district court should make a de novo review of the record with respect to that factual issue. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); U.S. v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667 (1980); Jeffrey S. v. State Board of Education of State of Georgia, 896 f.2d 507 (11th Cir. 1990). However, when no timely and specific objections are filed, case law indicates that the court should review the findings using a clearly erroneous standard. Gropp v. United Airlines, Inc., 817 F.Supp. 1558, 1562 (M.D. Fla. 1993).
The Court has reviewed the report and recommendation and made an independent review of the record. Upon due consideration, the Court concurs with the report and recommendation, wherein the magistrate judge specifically finds that the testimony of the plaintiff lacked credibility. Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that the report and recommendation, dated June 13, 2008 (Docket No. 139) be adopted and incorporated by reference. The defendants' motion to enforce settlement agreement (Docket No. 23) be granted; the Court enforces the terms of the oral agreement reached on May 28, 2008; the objections are overruled; and the defendants shall pay the Plaintiff $45,000.00 no later than ten days from the date of this order, with each party to bear it's own costs and attorney's fees. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case and terminate any pending motions.
DONE and ORDERED in Chambers, in Tampa, Florida.