UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 23-80279-CIV-DIMITROULEAS

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

vs.

ROBERT M. DUBOIS JR. and JOAN C. DUBOIS,

Defendants. ___________________________________/

ORDER ADOPTING AND APPROVING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE; GRANTING SECOND APPLICATION

THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Plaintiff United States’ Expedited Application for an Amended Writ of Attachment (“Second Application”) [DE 100], the December 20, 2023 Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (the “Report”) [DE 107]; the United States’ Notice of Non-Objection to Report and Recommendation [DE 108], Defendant Joan C. Dubois (“Ms. Dubois)’s Objection to Report and Recommendation [DE 110]; and the United States’ Response to Defendant Joan C. Dubois’ Objection to the Report and Recommendation [DE 111]. The Court has carefully considered these filings, the entire docket, and is otherwise fully advised in the premises. A party seeking to challenge the findings in a report and recommendation of a United States Magistrate Judge must file “written objections which shall specifically identify the portions of the proposed findings and recommendation to which objection is made and the specific basis for objection.” Macort v. Prem, Inc.,

(11th Cir. 2006) (quoting Heath v. Jones,

(11th Cir. 1989)). “It is critical that the objection be sufficiently specific and not a general objection to the report.” Macort,

(citing Goney v. Clark,

(3d Cir. 1984)). If a party makes a timely and specific objection to a finding in the report and recommendation, the district court must conduct a de

novo review of the portions of the report to which objection is made. Macort,

; see also

(b)(1). The district court may accept, reject, or modify in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the Magistrate Judge. Macort,

;

(b)(1). Accordingly, the Court has undertaken a de novo review of the record and Ms. Dubois’ Objection to Report and Recommendation [DE 110]. Having carefully considered Ms. Dubois’ Objection, the Court overrules the Objection. Ms. DuBois’s Objection merely rehashes arguments submitted to and rejected by the Magistrate Judge. Further, the Objection fails to sufficiently address the governing statutes and their application to the factual findings in this case. The Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s reasoning and conclusions. Further, the

Objection does not provide any adequate explanation for the contradictory statements Ms. DuBois has offered regarding the funds at issue, nor does it claim that Ms. DuBois is not dissipating the funds at issue. Based on the foregoing, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:

1. The Report [DE 107] is hereby APPROVED; 2. Ms. Dubois’ Objection to Report and Recommendation [DE 110] is OVERRULED; 3. The United States’ Second Application [DE 100] is hereby GRANTED; 4. The Court will separately enter the requested Amended Writ of Attachment and Amended Writ of Garnishment [DE 100-3, DE 112-2]; 5. The Sealed Writ of Attachment [DE 88] is hereby QUASHED; 6. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to UNSEAL the R&R issued on November 14, 2023 [DE 85], as well as the other currently sealed docket entries in this case [DE’s 83, 86, 87, 88, 89, 97, 99], in light of the Government’s disclosure of sealed filings to Defendants. 7. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to issue the requested Clerk’s Notice [DE 100-5].

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Fort Lauderdale, Broward County, Florida, this 27th day of December, 2023.

fl } “a 4 : “4 if % f ? f tne i ye Zo #4 v Paty 4 ‘4 ase □□ CA KAMA OK WML GC VILLIAM P. DIMITROULEAS United States District Judge

Copies furnished to: Magistrate Judge McCabe Counsel of Record