Min Li v. Alonzo Lonnie Bristol, III

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Newport News Division

MIN LI, Plaintiff, v. Civil No. 4:24cv59 ALONZO LONNIE BRISTOL, III, Defendant.

FINAL ORDER Before the Court is a Motion to Enforce Settlement (the “Motion”) filed by Plaintiff Min Li (“Ms. Li”). Mot., ECF No. 117. Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and (C), Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and Rule of the Rules of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, this matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Robert J. Krask for a Report and Recommendation.

On December 18, 2025, Ms. Li filed the instant Motion. Mot., ECF No. 117. On January 1, 2026, Defendant Alonzo Lonnie Bristol, III (“Mr. Bristol”) filed a response in opposition to the Motion. Resp. Opp’n, ECF No. 118. On January 7, 2026, Ms. Li filed her reply. Reply, ECF No. 119. On April 2, 2026, the Magistrate Judge filed a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”), wherein he recommended that the Motion be granted. R&R at 1, ECF No. 127.

By copy of the Report and Recommendation, each party was advised of the right to file written objections to the findings and recommendations made by the Mag- istrate Judge. Id. at 13–14. The Court received Mr. Bristol’s objection to the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 128) on April 10, 2026. Ms. Li filed a Memorandum in Opposition to Mr. Bristol’s objection on April 23, 2026. Mem. Opp’n, ECF No. 129.

Ms. Li subsequently filed two additional oppositions on April 24 and May 19, 2026.

ECF Nos. 130, 133.1 The Court has reviewed the record, Mr. Bristol’s objection to the R&R, and Ms. Li’s responses thereto. Upon consideration, the Court finds that Mr. Bristol’s objec- tion lacks specificity to require this Court’s de novo review. Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), any party may serve and file written objections to a Magistrate Judge’s report and recommendation within fourteen (14) days of receiving the report. How- ever, when a party fails to make a timely and specific objection, the district court need only ensure “that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.” Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005). Further, failure to make either timely or specific objections consti- tutes a waiver of appellate review. Arakas v. Comm'r, Soc. Sec. Admin., 983 F.3d 83, 103 (4th Cir. 2020) (internal citations omitted); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2).

Mr. Bristol’s one page objection to the Report and Recommendation lacks any specificity that would reasonably alert the Court to the nature of his objection.

1 On April 29, 2026, Ms. Li filed a Motion for Leave to File Amended Memorandum in Opposition to Defendant’s Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recom- mendation Regarding Settlement Enforcement. Mot., ECF No. 131. That motion was granted by the Magistrate Judge on May 19, 2026. Order, ECF No. 132. The Court has considered the amended memorandum docketed at ECF No. 133.

Rather, he relies solely on “his previously-filed Response Brief” opposing the Motion, which includes all arguments already considered by the Magistrate Judge. Obj. at 1, ECF No. 128.

Finding no clear error2 and for the reasons articulated in the R&R, the Court agrees that the settlement agreement is enforceable. R&R at 5, ECF No. 127. There- fore, the Court hereby ADOPTS and APPROVES the findings and recommenda- tions set forth in the R&R filed April 2, 2026. For the reasons stated therein, the Motion (ECF No. 117) is GRANTED. The parties SHALL comply with the proce- dures provided in the R&R. R&R at 11–12, ECF No. 127.3 The parties are ADVISED that an appeal from this Final Order may be com- menced by forwarding a written notice of appeal to the Clerk of the United States District Court, United States Courthouse, 600 Granby Street, Norfolk, Virginia 23510. This written notice must be received by the Clerk within thirty days from the date of this Final Order.

The Clerk is DIRECTED to please provide a copy of this Order to all parties.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/ Arenda L. Wright Allen Senior United States District Judge May 28, 2026 Norfolk, Virginia To be sure, even upon de novo review, the Court’s conclusion would be the same.

3 Because this Order resolves all substantive issues pending in this matter, the Court exercises its “sound discretion” and DENIES both Ms. Li’s Motion to Withdraw as Counsel (ECF No. 121) and Mr. Bristol’s Motion to Withdraw as Attorney (ECF No. 126). Huang v. Bd. of Governors of Univ. of N. Carolina, 902 F.2d 1134, 1142 (4th Cir. 1990). The attorneys of record are to facilitate execution of this Order.