□ UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION MACE SECURITY INTERNATIONAL, INC., Plaintiff, Case No. 8:19-cv-01429-T-60AEP -

MOBILE DYNAMIC MARKETING INC. . d/b/a STEALTH TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Defendant.

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation of Anthony E. Porcelli, United States Magistrate Judge, entered on October 21, 2019. (Doc. # 21). By the thorough and reasoned report and recommendation, Judge Porcelli recommends that (1) Plaintiffs “Motion for Default Final Judgment and to Require Completion of a Fact Information Sheet” (Doc. # 13) be denied, and (2) Defendant’s “Motion to Vacation Clerk’s Default” (Doc. # 16) be granted. Neither Plaintiff nor Defendant filed an objection to the amended report and recommendation, and the time to object has expired. □

Under the Federal Magistrates Act, Congress vested Article III judges with the power to “designate a magistrate judge to hear and determine any pretrial matter pending before the court,” subject to various exceptions.

(b)(1)(A). The Act further vests magistrate judges with authority to submit

Page 1 nf 2

proposed findings of fact and recommendations for disposition by an Article III judge.

(b)(1)(B). 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.

(b)(1); Williams v. Wainwright,

(11th Cir. 1982). In the absence of specific objections, there is no requirement that a district judge review factual findings de novo. Garvey v. Vaughn,

, 779 n.9 (11th Cir. 1993). However, the district judge reviews legal conclusions de novo, even in the absence of an objection. See Cooper-Houston v. S. Ry. Co.,

, 604 (11th Cir. 1994); Castro Bobadilla v. Reno,

(S.D. Fla. 1993), affd,

(11th Cir. 1994) (table). When no timely and specific objections are filed, case law indicates the district judge should review the magistrate judge’s proposed findings and recommendations using a clearly erroneous standard. See Gropp v. United Airlines, Inc.,

(M.D. Fla. 1993). After careful consideration of the record, including Judge Porcelli’s report and recommendation, the Court adopts the amended report and recommendation. The Court agrees with Judge Porcelli’s detailed and well-reasoned factual findings and legal conclusions. Consequently, (1) Plaintiffs “Motion for Default Final Judgment and to Require Completion of a Fact Information Sheet” is denied, and (2) Defendant’s “Motion to Vacation Clerk’s Default” is granted.

Pace 2

It therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED: 1. Plaintiffs "Motion for Default Final Judgment and to Require Completion ofa Fact Information Sheet" (Doc.# DENIED. 2. Defendant's "Motion to Vacate Clerk's Default" (Doc.# 16) is GRANTED. 3. The Clerk is directed to VACATE the entry of the Clerk's default. (Doc.# 11). 4. Defendant has fourteen (14) days from the date of the Court's Order to file a responsive pleading. DONE and ORDERED in Chambers in Tampa, FL this 13th day of November. 2019.

TOM BARBER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Pace 3 of 3