West v. Waste Pro of Florida, Inc.
ORDER GRANTING 24 the Motion for Settlement Approval; ADOPTING 28 the Report and Recommendations on 24 the Motion for Settlement Approval. Signed by Judge Roy K. Altman on 11/18/2022. See attached document for full details. (ema)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO. 22-cv-60296-ALTMAN/Hunt
WASTE PRO OF FLORIDA, INC.,
On June 30, 2022, the parties filed a Joint Motion for Settlement Approval [ECF No. 24] (the
“Motion”). The Court referred that Motion to United States Magistrate Judge Patrick M. Hunt. See
Order of Referral [ECF No. 25]. Magistrate Judge Hunt issued a Report and Recommendation [ECF
No. 28] (the “R&R”), in which he determined that the Motion should be granted. Magistrate Judge
Hunt also warned the parties as follows:
Within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy of this Report and
Recommendation, any party may serve and file written objections to any of the above
findings and recommendations as provided by the Local Rules for this district. 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); S.D. FLA. MAG. R. 4(b). The parties are hereby notified that a failure
to timely object waives the right to challenge on appeal the District Court’s order based
on unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions contained in this Report and
Recommendation. 11th Cir. R. 3–1 (2018); see Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985).
Id. at 3. More than fourteen days have passed, and neither side has objected.
When a magistrate judge’s “disposition” has been properly objected to, district courts must
review that disposition de novo. FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(3). But, 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 that Congress’s
intent was to require de novo review only where objections have been properly filed—and not, as here,
when no 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)).
Having reviewed the R&R, the record, and the applicable law, we find no clear error on the
face of the R&R. Accordingly, we hereby ORDER AND ADJUDGE as follows:
The R&R [ECF No. 28] is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in full.
The Joint Motion for Settlement Approval [ECF No. 24] is GRANTED.
This case is DISMISSED with prejudice, in accordance with the Parties’ agreedupon terms.
All other pending motions are DENIED as moot. Any pending deadlines and
hearings are TERMINATED.
The Court retains jurisdiction for thirty (30) days to enforce the terms of the
The Plaintiff should file any Motion for Attorney Fees in accordance with Local Rule
DONE AND ORDERED in the Southern District of Florida on November 18, 2022.
ROY K. ALTMAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
counsel of record
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?