UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 19-24013-CIV-GAYLES/OTAZO-REYES

ROBERT DOYLE,

Plaintiff,

v.

FLORIDA HEALTH SOLUTIONS, CORP., et al.,

Defendants. /

ORDER AFFIRMING AND ADOPTING REPORT OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on the Report and Recommendation and Certification of Facts Constituting Contempt (the “Report”) [ECF No. 115].1 Plaintiff filed Notice of Hearing to Enforce Mobility Technology USA, Corp.’s (“Mobility”) Compliance with a Subpeona. [ECF No. 103]. Following a show cause hearing on July 8, 2021, Magistrate Judge Otazo-Reyes issued her Report recommending that Mobility, a defaulted Defendant, be held in contempt of court based on its failure to comply with Plaintiff’s Subpoena to Produce Documents; its failure to appear at the June 17, 2021 telephonic hearing pursuant to the Notice of Hearing; and its failure to comply with the Show Cause Hearing Order directing it to appear via Zoom at the July 8, 2021 Show Cause Hearing. The Report also recommends that a fine of $100 per day be imposed on Mobility until it purges itself of the contempt. [ECF No. 115]. No objections have been filed to the Report. A district court may accept, reject, or modify a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation.

(b)(1). Those portions of the report and recommendation to which objection is made are accorded de novo review, if those objections “pinpoint the specific findings that the party disagrees with.” United States v. Schultz,

(11th Cir. 2009); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). Any portions of the report and recommendation to which no specific objection is made are reviewed only for clear error. Liberty Am. Ins. Grp., Inc. v. WestPoint Underwriters, L.L.C.,

(M.D. Fla. 2001); accord Macort v. Prem, Inc.,

(11th Cir. 2006). The Court has reviewed the Report for clear error and agrees with Judge Otazo-Reyes’s well-reasoned analysis and conclusion that Mobility should be held in contempt. Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: (1) Judge Otazo-Reyes’s Report [ECF No. 115] 1s AFFIRMED AND ADOPTED and incorporated into this Order by reference; (2) The Court holds Mobility in civil contempt for its failure to comply with Plaintiffs Subpoena to Produce Documents; its failure to appear at the June 17, 2021 telephonic hearing pursuant to the Notice of Hearing; and its failure to comply with the Show Cause Hearing Order directing it to appear via Zoom at the July 8, 2021 Show Cause Hearing; (3) A fine of $100 per day, from the date of this Order, is imposed on Mobility until it purges itself of the contempt by complying with Plaintiff's Subpoena to Produce Documents and explaining its non-appearance before Magistrate Judge Otazo- Reyes. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this 21st day of January, 2022.

Df

UNITED STATES DI CT JUDGE