Filed: Jun. 11, 2018
Latest Update: Jun. 11, 2018
Summary: OPINION AND ORDER JOHN E. STEELE , Senior District Judge . This matter is before the Court on consideration of the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (Doc. #36), filed May 24, 2018, recommending that the Motion to Show Cause Why Arrest of MV "20%" Should Not Be Vacated (Doc. #22) be denied. No objections have been filed and the time to do so has expired. After conducting a careful and complete review of the findings and recommendations, a district judge may accept, reject or mod
Summary: OPINION AND ORDER JOHN E. STEELE , Senior District Judge . This matter is before the Court on consideration of the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (Doc. #36), filed May 24, 2018, recommending that the Motion to Show Cause Why Arrest of MV "20%" Should Not Be Vacated (Doc. #22) be denied. No objections have been filed and the time to do so has expired. After conducting a careful and complete review of the findings and recommendations, a district judge may accept, reject or modi..
More
OPINION AND ORDER
JOHN E. STEELE, Senior District Judge.
This matter is before the Court on consideration of the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (Doc. #36), filed May 24, 2018, recommending that the Motion to Show Cause Why Arrest of MV "20%" Should Not Be Vacated (Doc. #22) be denied. No objections have been filed and the time to do so has expired.
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), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1112 (1983). 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 recommendations. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The district judge reviews legal conclusions de novo, even in the absence of an objection. See Cooper-Houston v. Southern 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) (Table).
The Magistrate Judge conducted an evidentiary hearing where he heard testimony and admitted evidence. The Magistrate Judge found that plaintiff established by a preponderance of the evidence the reasonableness of the costs of repairs as compared to what other competitors in the industry would charge, and that the repairs to the vessel were at the direction of the owner or the owner's agent, the two contested elements. After conducting an independent examination of the file and upon due consideration of the Report and Recommendation, the Court accepts the Report and Recommendation of the magistrate judge.
Accordingly, it is now
ORDERED:
1. The Report and Recommendation (Doc. #36) is hereby adopted and the findings incorporated herein.
2. The vessel's Motion to Show Cause Why Arrest of MV "20%" Should Not Be Vacated (Doc. #22) is DENIED.
DONE and ORDERED.
