recommending the adoption of what would become 11th Circuit Rule 3-1 so that district courts do not have “to spend significant amounts of time and resources reviewing every issue—whether objected to or not.”
How later courts described this case
- recommending the adoption of what would become 11th Circuit Rule 3-1 so that district courts do not have “to spend significant amounts of time and resources reviewing every issue—whether objected to or not.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
JACKSONVILLE DIVISION
NATIONAL UNION FIRE
INSURANCE COMPANY OF
PITTSBURGH, PA, as assignee
and subrogee of Florida Education
Association,
Plaintiff,
v. Case No. 3:20-cv-11-MMH-MCR
MILDRED K. GRIFFIS a/k/a Kelly
Griffis,
Defendant.
______________________________
O R D E R
THIS CAUSE is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation
(Dkt. No. 61; Report), entered by the Honorable Monte C. Richardson, United
States Magistrate Judge, on April 26, 2023. In the Report, Judge Richardson
recommends that Plaintiff’s Motion for Final Order of Judgment of Continuing
Garnishment (Dkt. No. 59; Motion) be granted. See Report at 2, 9. No
objections to the Report have been filed, and the time for doing so has now
passed.
The Court “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).
Pursuant to Rule 72, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (Rule(s)), the Court
“must determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition that
has been properly objected to.” See Rule 72(b)(3); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
However, a party waives the right to challenge on appeal any unobjected-to
factual and legal conclusions. See 11th Cir. R. 3-1.1 As such, the Court reviews
those portions of the Magistrate Judge’s findings to which no objection was
filed for plain error and only if necessary, in the interests of justice. See id.;
see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985) (“It does not appear that
Congress intended to require district court review of a magistrate [judge’s]
factual or legal conclusions, under a de novo or any other standard, when
neither party objects to those findings.”); Dupree v. Warden, 715 F.3d 1295,
1304-05 (11th Cir. 2013) (recommending the adoption of what would become
11th Circuit Rule 3-1 so that district courts do not have “to spend significant
amounts of time and resources reviewing every issue—whether objected to or
not.”).
1 The Magistrate Judge properly informed the parties of the time period for objecting
and the consequences of failing to do so. See Report at 1, n.1.
Upon independent review of the file and for the reasons stated in the
Magistrate Judge’s Report, the Court will accept and adopt the legal and
factual conclusions recommended by the Magistrate Judge. Accordingly, it is
hereby
ORDERED:
1. The Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 61) is
ADOPTED as the opinion of the Court.
2. Plaintiff’s Motion for Final Order of Judgment of Continuing
Garnishment (Dkt. No. 59) is GRANTED.
3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter final judgment of
continuing garnishment in favor of Plaintiff, National Union Fire
Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA, as assignee and subrogee of
the Florida Education Association, and against Garnishee, the School
Board of Clay County Florida (improperly named as Clay County
District Schools), directing Garnishee to garnish the portion of
Defendant’s salary or wages as set forth in the Garnishee’s Answer
until the Judgment in the outstanding amount of $220,228.09 against
Defendant is satisfied or until the Court orders otherwise.
DONE AND ORDERED in Jacksonville, Florida, this 18th day of May,
2023.
MARCIA MORALES HOWARD
United States District Judge
157
Copies to:
Counsel of Record
Mildred K. Griffis
5240 Mallard Road
Middleburg, FL 32068
The School Board of Clay County, Florida
900 Walnut Street
Green Cove Springs, FL 32043
-4-