Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

U.S. v. BARNES, 3:08-cv-966-J-34MCR. (2012)

Court: District Court, M.D. Florida Number: infdco20120605c56 Visitors: 13
Filed: Jun. 04, 2012
Latest Update: Jun. 04, 2012
Summary: ORDER MARCIA MORLES HOWARD, District Judge. THIS CAUSE is before the Court on Magistrate Judge Monte C. Richardson's Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 52; Report), entered on January 24, 2012. In the Report, Magistrate Judge Richardson recommends that Plaintiff United States' Motion for Default Judgment (Dkt. No. 50) be granted, and that the Clerk of the Court be directed to enter final judgment in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant Nathan Genrich in the total amount of $1,671,212.76
More

ORDER

MARCIA MORLES HOWARD, District Judge.

THIS CAUSE is before the Court on Magistrate Judge Monte C. Richardson's Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 52; Report), entered on January 24, 2012. In the Report, Magistrate Judge Richardson recommends that Plaintiff United States' Motion for Default Judgment (Dkt. No. 50) be granted, and that the Clerk of the Court be directed to enter final judgment in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant Nathan Genrich in the total amount of $1,671,212.76 as of December 31, 2011, with interest accruing at the usual and lawful rate for federal court judgments thereafter. See Report at 5. No objections to the Report have been filed, and the time for doing so has now passed. However, on January 27, 2012, Plaintiff filed a response to the Report clarifying the applicable rate for the accrual of interest on the judgment. See Plaintiff United States' Response to Report and Recommendation on Motion for Default Judgment (Dkt. No. 53; Response).

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). If no specific objections to findings of facts are filed, the district court is not required to conduct a de novo review of those findings. See Garvey v. Vaughn, 993 F.2d 776, 779 n.9 (11th Cir. 1993); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). However, the district court must review legal conclusions de novo. See Cooper-Houston v. Southern Ry. Co., 37 F.3d 603, 604 (11th Cir. 1994); United States v. Rice, No. 2:07-mc-8-FtM-29SPC, 2007 WL 1428615, at * 1 (M.D. Fla. May 14, 2007).

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, with the clarification noted in Plaintiff's Response. Accordingly, it is hereby

ORDERED:

1. The Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 52) of Magistrate Judge Richardson is ADOPTED, as clarified, by the Court.

2. Plaintiff United States' Motion for Default Judgment (Dkt. No. 50) is GRANTED.

3. As the Court finds there is no just reason for delay, the Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to enter judgment in favor of Plaintiff, United States of America, and against Defendant, Nathan Genrich, for assessed unpaid federal income tax liabilities for the tax year 1997 in the amount of $1,671,212.76 as of December 31, 2011, with statutory additions allowed by law, and interest accruing at the applicable statutory rate pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 6621.

DONE AND ORDERED.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer