Provident Bank v. Hill

Filing 101

ORDER accepting, approving and adopting in all respects 99 Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge; and granting 95 Provident Bank's Motion for Final Summary Judgment of Garnishment. Signed by Judge James D. Whittemore on 6/15/2022. (CAB)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
PROVIDENT BANK,
Plaintiff,
vs.

Case No.: 8:12-cv-01663-JDW-AEP

JOHN S. HILL,
Defendant.
________________________________________/
ORDER
BEFORE THE COURT is the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge
recommending that Provident Bank’s Motion for Final Summary Judgment of Garnishment (Dkt.
95) be granted (Dkt. 99). Defendant has not responded or objected to the Report and
Recommendation.
A district court may accept, reject or modify a magistrate judge’s report and
recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). In the absence of specific objections, there is no
requirement that factual findings be reviewed de novo and the court may accept, reject or
modify, in whole or in part, the findings and recommendations. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C);
Garvey v. Vaughn, 993 F.2d 776, 779 n.9 (11th Cir. 1993). Legal conclusions are reviewed de
novo, even in the absence of an objection. See LeCroy v. McNeil, 397 Fed. App’x. 554, 556 (11th
Cir. 2010) (citing United States v. Warren, 687 F.2d 347, 348 (11th Cir. 1982)); Cooper-Houston
v. S. Ry. Co., 37 F.3d 603, 604 (11th Cir. 1994).
After careful review and finding that the legal conclusions in the Report and
Recommendation are correct, the Report and Recommendation is accepted, approved and
1

adopted in all respects. Accordingly, Provident Bank’s Motion for Final Summary Judgment of
Garnishment (Dkt. 95) is GRANTED. Final Garnishment Judgment in favor of Provident Bank
shall enter against one half ($1,198.59) of the sum held in Wells Fargo Bank N.A. checking
account -7286, as recommended by the Magistrate Judge.
DONE AND ORDERED this 15th day of June, 2022.

Copies to: Counsel of Record, Defendant

2