Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

U.S. v. Bozman, 3:15-cv-573-J-34JRK. (2016)

Court: District Court, M.D. Florida Number: infdco20160613b75 Visitors: 10
Filed: Jun. 09, 2016
Latest Update: Jun. 09, 2016
Summary: ORDER MARCIA MORALES HOWARD , District Judge . THIS CAUSE is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 21; Report), entered by the Honorable James R. Klindt, United States Magistrate Judge, on May 4, 2016. In the Report, Magistrate Judge Klindt recommends that Plaintiff's Motion for Entry of Default Judgment (Dkt. No. 18) be granted in part and denied in part. See Report at 1, 9. Defendant has failed to file objections to the Report, and the time for doing so has now p
More

ORDER

THIS CAUSE is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 21; Report), entered by the Honorable James R. Klindt, United States Magistrate Judge, on May 4, 2016. In the Report, Magistrate Judge Klindt recommends that Plaintiff's Motion for Entry of Default Judgment (Dkt. No. 18) be granted in part and denied in part. See Report at 1, 9. Defendant has failed to file objections to the Report, 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). 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. Accordingly, it is hereby

ORDERED:

1. The Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 21) is ADOPTED as the opinion of the Court.

2. Plaintiff's Motion for Entry of Default Judgment (Dkt. No. 18) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

3. The Motion is GRANTED to the extent that the Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant in the following amounts: $3,870.89 in principal, $5,705.38 in prejudgment interest as of November 20, 2015, with prejudgment interest on the total principal accruing at such a rate as the Department establishes pursuant to section 427A of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended, 20 U.S.C. § 1077a; $2,840.34 in principal, $5,052.17 in prejudgment interest as of November 20, 2015, with prejudgment interest accruing on the principal at a rate of $0.62 per day; interest on both principal amounts from the date of judgment at a legal rate set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1961 until paid in full; $940.00 in attorney's fees; and $45.00 in costs.

4. Otherwise, the Motion is DENIED.

5. The Clerk of the Court is further directed to terminate any pending motions and close the file.

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