Case Information
*1 Case: 1:24-cv-00937-PAB Doc #: 66 Filed: 04/14/25 1 of 2. PageID #: 340
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE CASE NO. 1:24-cv-00937-PAB COMPANY OF PITTSBURGH, PA., as assignee and subrogee of Parkdale, Incorporated and U.S. Cotton, LLC, JUDGE PAMELA A. BARKER
Plaintiff, Magistrate Judge Jonathan D. Greenberg -vs- MEMORANDUM OF OPINION AND REBECCA BRADSHAW, OMAR ORDER NEGRON and ANGEL DAVID ROSEN d/b/a AFFORDABLE PALLET,
Defendants.
This matter is before the Court upon the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Jonathan D. Greenberg (Doc. No. 60), which recommends that the Court dissolve the Writ of Garnishment as to PNC Bank (Doc. No. 47). No objections have been filed. For the reasons that follow, the Report and Recommendation is ACCEPTED.
STANDARD OF REVIEW When objections are made to a Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, the district
court reviews the case de novo . Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b)(3) provides in pertinent part: The district judge must determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition that has been properly objected to. The district judge may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.
As stated in the Advisory Committee Notes, “[w]hen no timely objection is filed, the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.” In Thomas v. Arn , 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985), the Court held, “[i]t does not appear
*2 Case: 1:24-cv-00937-PAB Doc #: 66 Filed: 04/14/25 2 of 2. PageID #: 341 that Congress intended to require district court review of a magistrate’s factual or legal conclusions, under a de novo or any other standard, when neither party objects to those findings.”
DECISION
This Court, having reviewed the Report and Recommendation and finding no clear error,
accepts the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation. Plaintiff’s Motion to Dissolve Writ of Garnishment as to PNC Bank (Doc. No. 58) is GRANTED. The Court hereby dissolves the Writ of Garnishment as to PNC Bank (Doc. No. 47) for the reasons stated by the Magistrate Judge in the Report and Recommendation, which is incorporated herein by reference.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Pamela A. Barker
PAMELA A. BARKER
Date: April 14, 2025 U. S. DISTRICT JUDGE 2