Filing 81

ORDER AFFIRMING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, granting 61 Motion for Bill of Costs; Adopting 78 Report and Recommendations on 61 Motion for Bill of Costs filed by Sam's East, Inc., denying 64 Motion to Strike filed by LUIS LUQUE, BRENDA HERNANDEZ. Certificate of Appealability: No Ruling Signed by Judge Rodolfo A. Ruiz, II on 9/7/2021. See attached document for full details. (pcs)

Download PDF
Case 0:20-cv-61648-RAR Document 81 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/08/2021 Page 1 of 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 20-CV-61648-RAR BRENDA HERNANDEZ, and LUIS LUQUE, Plaintiffs, v. SAM’S EAST, INC., Defendant. _________________________________/ ORDER AFFIRMING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon United States Magistrate Judge Jared M. Strauss’s Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 78] (“Report”), filed on August 13, 2021. The Report recommends that the Court grant Defendant Sam’s East, Inc.’s Verified Memorandum in Support of Its Bill of Costs (“Defendant’s Motion”) [ECF No. 61] and deny Plaintiffs’ response and incorporated motion to strike (“Plaintiffs’ Motion to Strike”) [ECF No. 64]. See Report at 1. The Report properly notified the parties of their right to object to Magistrate Judge Strauss’s findings and the consequences for failing to object. Id. at 6. The time for objections has passed and no party has filed any objections to the Report. When a magistrate judge’s “disposition” has properly been objected to, district courts must review the disposition de novo. FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(3). However, when no party has timely objected, “the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.” FED. R. CIV. P. 72 advisory committee’s notes (citation omitted). Although Rule 72 itself is silent on the standard of review, the Supreme Court has acknowledged Congress’s intent was to only require a de novo review where objections have been Case 0:20-cv-61648-RAR Document 81 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/08/2021 Page 2 of 2 properly filed, not when neither party objects. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985) (“It does not appear that Congress intended to require district court review of a magistrate [judge]’s factual or legal conclusions, under a de novo or any other standard, when neither party objects to those findings.”). In any event, the “[f]ailure to object to the magistrate [judge]’s factual findings after notice precludes a later attack on these findings.” Lewis v. Smith, 855 F.2d 736, 738 (11th Cir. 1988) (citing Nettles v. Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404, 410 (5th Cir. 1982)). Because no party has filed an objection to the Report, the Court did not conduct a de novo review of Magistrate Judge Strauss’s findings. error. Rather, the Court reviewed the Report for clear Finding none, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: 1. The Report [ECF No. 78] is AFFIRMED AND ADOPTED. 2. Defendant’s Motion [ECF No. 61] is GRANTED. Defendant is awarded costs in the amount of $6,652.55 and post-judgment interest to be calculated from April 27, 2021, until the judgment is satisfied. 3. Plaintiffs’ Motion to Strike [ECF No. 64] is DENIED. DONE AND ORDERED in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, this 7th day of September, 2021. _________________________________ RODOLFO A. RUIZ II UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE cc: Counsel of record Magistrate Judge Jared M. Strauss Page 2 of 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?