In the Matter of the Complaint of Todd Rosenthal, as Owner, of the 2013...

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION IN ADMIRALTY

IN THE MATTER OF THE COMPLAINT OF TODD ROSENTHAL, as owner, of the 2013 Everglades 243CC Case No. 8:25-cv-2000-KKM-CPT (HIN: RJDJ0224H213), in a cause of exoneration from or limitation of liability, Petitioner.

ORDER Petitioner Todd Rosenthal moves for default judgment against all non- appearing potential claimants. (Doc. 25). On January 29, 2026, the United States Magistrate Judge entered a Report and Recommendation, recommending that Rosenthal’s motion be granted. R. & R. (Doc. 30). The fourteen-day deadline to object to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation has passed without any party lodging an objection.

Considering the record, the Court adopts the Report and Recommendation for the reasons stated therein and grants the motion for default judgment.

After conducting a careful and complete review of the findings and recommendations, a district judge may accept, reject, or modify a magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). If a party files a timely and specific objection to a finding of fact by a magistrate judge, the district court must conduct a de novo review with respect to that factual issue.

Stokes v. Singletary, 952 F.2d 1567, 1576 (11th Cir. 1992). The district court reviews legal conclusions de novo, even in the absence of an objection. See Cooper-Houston v. S. Ry. Co., 37 F.3d 603, 604 (11th Cir. 1994); Ashworth v. Glades Cnty. Bd. of Cnty. Comm’rs, 379 F. Supp. 3d 1244, 1246 (M.D. Fla. 2019).

In the absence of any objection and after reviewing the factual allegations and legal conclusions, the Court adopts the Report and Recommendation. Like the Magistrate Judge, I conclude that default judgment is appropriate against all non-appearing claimants who failed to file a claim or answer by the September 30, 2025 deadline to do so. See (Doc. 9) at 5.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED: 1. The Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 30) is ADOPTED and made a part of this Order for all purposes.

2. Petitioner Todd Rosenthal’s Motion for Default Judgment (Doc. 25) is GRANTED.

3. All persons and entities who failed to file a claim or answer are barred from filing any further claims or answers related to or arising out of the events described in the Complaint (Doc 1).

4, The Clerk is directed to ENTER a final judgment for exoneration by default in favor of Todd Rosenthal and against all non- appearing potential claimants who failed to file a claim or answer within the established notice period.

ORDERED in Tampa, Florida, on February 17, 2026.

= ‘ml Mizelle United States District Judge