Future Metals LLC v. Ruggiero
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,
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.
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
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. 38] is AFFIRMED AND ADOPTED.
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.
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
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?