Future Metals LLC v. Ruggiero

Filing 43

ORDER Adopting 38 Report and Recommendations. Signed by Judge Rodolfo A. Ruiz, II on 4/28/2021. See attached document for full details. (as03)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO. 21-CV-60114-RAR
FUTURE METALS LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.
FRANK RUGGIERO,
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. 38] (“Report”), filed on April 13, 2021.

The

Report recommends that the Court grant in part and deny in part Plaintiff’s Motion for a Temporary
Restraining Order [ECF No. 21] (“Motion”).

See Report at 1.

Specifically, the Report

recommends that the Court grant the Motion to the extent it seeks to continue the Stipulated Order
[ECF No. 18].

Id. at 43.

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 43-44.

The time for objections has passed and neither party 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

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.”).
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
error.

Finding none, it is
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
1.

The Report [ECF No. 38] is AFFIRMED AND ADOPTED.

2.

Plaintiff’s Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order [ECF No. 21] is GRANTED

to the extent it seeks to continue the Stipulated Order [ECF No. 18] but is otherwise DENIED.
3.

The Stipulated Order is extended nunc pro tunc until thirty (30) days following the

Evidentiary Hearing to take place on June 2, 2021.
DONE AND ORDERED in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, this 28th day of April, 2021.

_________________________________
RODOLFO A. RUIZ II
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
cc:

Counsel of record
Magistrate Judge Jared M. Strauss

Page 2 of 2