# Brown v. Care Front Funding

> District Court, M.D. Florida · April 26, 2023

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10112800

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, M.D. Florida
- **Decided:** April 26, 2023
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10112800

## Opinion text

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

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10112800. Public record. Not legal advice.