Opinion

Brown v. Care Front Funding

Court
District Court, M.D. Florida
Filed
Apr 26, 2023
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 19.9%

The opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TAMPA DIVISION

STEPHANIE BROWN,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 8:22-cv-2408-VMC-JSS

CARE FRONT FUNDING,

Defendant.

_______________________________/

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on consideration of

United States Magistrate Judge Julie Sneed’s Report and

Recommendation (Doc. # 17), filed on April 6, 2023,

recommending that Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment

(Doc. # 16) be granted in part.

As of the date of this Order, no objections have been

filed and the time for filing objections has lapsed. The Court

accepts and adopts the Report and Recommendation and grants

Plaintiff’s Motion as stated herein.

Discussion

After conducting a careful and complete review of the

findings and recommendations, a district judge may accept,

reject or modify the magistrate judge’s report and

recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Williams v.

Wainwright, 681 F.2d 732 (11th Cir. 1982). In the absence of

specific objections, there is no requirement that a district

judge review factual findings de novo, Garvey v. Vaughn, 993

F.2d 776, 779 n.9 (11th Cir. 1993), and the court may accept,

reject or modify, in whole or in part, the findings and

recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The district judge

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); Castro Bobadilla v. Reno, 826 F. Supp. 1428,

1431-32 (S.D. Fla. 1993), aff’d, 28 F.3d 116 (11th Cir. 1994).

After conducting a careful and complete review of the

findings, conclusions and recommendations, and giving de novo

review to matters of law, the Court accepts the factual

findings and legal conclusions of the magistrate judge.

Accordingly, it is now

ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED:

(1) The Report and Recommendation (Doc. # 17) is ACCEPTED

and ADOPTED. Plaintiff Stephanie Brown’s Motion for

Default Judgment (Doc. # 16) is GRANTED in part.

(2) The Clerk is directed to enter default judgment in favor

of Stephanie Brown and against Care Front Funding as to

Count I of Stephanie Brown’s Complaint (Doc. # 1), in

the amount of $1,500 in statutory damages pursuant to 47

U.S.C. § 227.

(3) Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment as to Count II

is DENIED without prejudice. The Court DISMISSES Count

II without prejudice.

(4) Plaintiff’s request for attorneys’ fees and costs is

DENIED without prejudice, subject to Plaintiff’s filing

a bill of costs with the Clerk.

(5) The Clerk is directed to CLOSE the case.

DONE and ORDERED in Chambers in Tampa, Florida, this

26th day of April, 2023.

VIRGINIA M. HERNANDEZ’COVINGTON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.