Wiand v. Catholic Charities, Diocese of Venice Inc.

Filing 83

ORDER adopting 77 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION re 59 MOTION for partial summary judgment As To Count I - Florida Statutes Section 726.105(1)(a) of Receiver's Amended Complaint filed by Catholic Charities, Diocese of Venice Inc..REPORT A ND RECOMMENDATION re 59 MOTION for partial summary judgment As To Count I - Florida Statutes Section 726.105(1)(a) of Receiver's Amended Complaint filed by Catholic Charities, Diocese of Venice Inc.; the objection of the defendant is overruled; and the motion for partial summary judgment 59 is denied. Signed by Judge Elizabeth A. Kovachevich on 3/7/2012. (SN)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION

IN RE BURTON W. WIAND, as Receiver for
VALHALLA INVESTMENT PARTNERS,
L.P.; VIKING FUND, LLC; VIKING IRA
FUND, LLC; VICTORY FUND, LTD.;
VICTORY IRA FUND, LTD., AND
SCOOP REAL ESTATE, L.P.,
Plaintiff,

vs.

Case No. 8:10-cv-247-T-17MAP

CATHOLIC CHARITIES, DIOCESE OF
VENICE, INC.,,

Defendants.
____________________________________/

ORDER ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This cause is before the Court on the report and recommendation (R&R) issued
by Magistrate Judge Mark A. Pizzo on February 7, 2012, wherein the Magistrate Judge
recommended that the defendant’s motion for partial summary judgment (Doc. 59) be
denied.

Pursuant to Rule 6.02, Rules of the United States District Court for the Middle
District of Florida, the parties had fourteen (14) days after service to file written
objections to the proposed findings and recommendations, or be barred from attacking
the factual findings on appeal. Nettles v. Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404 (5th Cir. 1982)
(en banc). The defendant filed objections to the report and recommendation (Doc. 81)
and the receiver responded to the objections (Doc. 82).
STANDARD OF REVIEW
When a party makes a timely and specific objection to a finding of fact in the
report and recommendation, the district court should make a de novo review of the
record with respect to that factual issue. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); U.S. v. Raddatz, 447
U.S. 667 (1980); Jeffrey S. v. State Board of Education of State of Georgia, 896
f.2d 507 (11th Cir. 1990). However, when no timely and specific objections are filed,
case law indicates that the court should review the findings using a clearly erroneous
standard. Gropp v. United Airlines, Inc., 817 F.Supp. 1558, 1562 (M.D. Fla. 1993).
The Court has reviewed the report and recommendation and made an
independent review of the record. Upon due consideration, the Court concurs with the
report and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. Accordingly, it is

2

ORDERED that the report and recommendation, February 7, 2012, be adopted
and incorporated by reference; the objection of the defendant be overruled; and the
motion for partial summary judgment (Doc. 59) be denied.

DONE and ORDERED in Chambers, in Tampa, Florida, this 7th day of
March, 2012.

Copies to: All parties and counsel of record
Assigned Magistrate Judge

3