HERNANDEZ et al v. SAMS EAST, INC.
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)
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
SAM’S EAST, INC.,
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.
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
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.
Rather, the Court reviewed the Report for clear
Finding none, it is
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
The Report [ECF No. 78] is AFFIRMED AND ADOPTED.
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.
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
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?