Orso v. Disner

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FORT PIERCE DIVISION CASE NO. 21-CIV-14061-CANNON/Maynard MATTHEW ORSO, as successor trustee to Kenneth D.

Bell in his capacity as court-appointed receiver for Rex Venture Group, LLC, and KENNETH D. BELL, in his capacity as court appointed Receiver for Rex Venture Group, LLC, d/b/a ZeekRewards.com, Plaintiffs, v. NATIONWIDE JUDGMENT RECOVERY, INC., Petitioner, v. TODD DISNER, in his individual capacity and in his capacity as trustee for Kestrel Spendthrift Trust, et al., Defendants, v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., et al.

Garnishees. _______________________________________/ ORDER ACCEPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon Magistrate Judge Maynard’s Report and Recommendation on Writs of Garnishment (the “Report”), issued on November 21, 2024 [ECF No. 43]. The Report recommends that the five pending writs of garnishment [ECF Nos. 5, 13, 22, 28, 32] be deemed dissolved [ECF No. 43]. No party filed objections to the Report, and the time to do so has expired. Upon review of the pending writs and the Report, the Report CASE NO. 21-14061-CIV-CANNON/Maynard [ECF No. 43] is ACCEPTED, and the writs [ECF Nos. 5, 13, 22, 28, 32] are DISSOLVED for the reasons stated in the Report.

To challenge the findings and recommendations of a magistrate judge, a party must file specific written objections identifying the portions of the proposed findings and recommendation to which objection is made. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); Heath v. Jones, 863 F.2d 815, 822 (11th Cir. 1989); Macort v. Prem, Inc., 208 F. App’x 781, 784 (11th Cir. 2006). A district court reviews de novo those portions of the report to which objection is made and may accept, reject, or modify in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). To the extent a party fails to object to parts of the magistrate judge’s report, the Court may accept the recommendation so long as there is no clear error on the face of the record. Macort, 208 F. App’x at 784. Legal conclusions are reviewed de novo, even in the absence of an objection. See LeCroy v. McNeil, 397 F. App’x 554, 556 (11th Cir. 2010); Cooper-Houston v. S. Ry. Co., 37 F.3d 603, 604 (11th Cir. 1994). aK Following review, the Court finds no clear error on the face of the Report and no errors of law. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: 1. The Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 43] is ACCEPTED.

2. The outstanding Writs of Garnishment [ECF Nos. 5, 13, 22, 28, 32] are DISSOLVED for the reasons stated in the Report.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Fort Pierce, Florida, this 9th day of December 2024. ? “ AILEEN MLCANNON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE ce: counsel of record