JANET T. NEFF, District Judge.
After obtaining a Default Judgment against Defendant, Plaintiff filed a "Motion to Take Possession of Defendant's Safe Deposit Box" (ECF No. 94), a motion that was referred to the Magistrate Judge. The Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation (R&R), recommending that this Court grant in part and deny in part Plaintiff's motion. Within the time period for filing objections to the Report and Recommendation, Plaintiff filed a "Motion for Order to Appear by Telephone" (ECF No. 100), essentially asking the Court to reconsider the mechanism for delivery the Magistrate Judge recommended in the Report and Recommendation. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(3), the Court has performed de novo consideration of the portion of the Report and Recommendation to which objection has been made. The Court denies Plaintiff's motion and issues this Opinion and Order, approving and adopting the Report and Recommendation.
The Magistrate Judge recommends that Bank of America be ordered to deliver the safe deposit box in question to the Magistrate Judge within twenty-eight (28) days after this Court adopts the recommendation. Once the safe deposit box is in the possession of the Court, the Magistrate Judge will schedule a hearing at which the Magistrate Judge will review the contents of the safe deposit box and provide to Plaintiff any items therein to which she is entitled. Bank of America, which was also expressly permitted to submit any objections to the Magistrate Judge's recommendation, did not file any objection. Having reviewed the record, the Court determines that Plaintiff's request to reconsider the recommended delivery mechanism is not warranted, and the Court will therefore deny her motion. The Magistrate Judge's recommended course of action is an appropriate exercise of discretion to protect any attorney-client privileged materials or client property in the safe deposit box. Therefore: