Rollie 100 LLC v. Westchester Surplus Lines Insurance Company

Filing 14

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION; denying 10 Motion for Attorney Fees; Adopting 13 Report and Recommendations on 10 Motion for Attorney Fees filed by Rollie 100 LLC, 13 Report and Recommendations. Certificate of Appealability: No Ruling. This case shall remain CLOSED. Signed by Judge Roy K. Altman on 2/5/2024. See attached document for full details. (nwn)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO. 23-cv-60808-ALTMAN/Strauss
ROLLIE 100 LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.
WESTCHESTER SURPLUS LINES
INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendant.
_______________________________________/
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
On December 22, 2023, the Plaintiff filed a Motion for Attorney Fees (the “Motion”) [ECF
No. 10]. On January 16, 2024, United States Magistrate Judge Jared M. Strauss issued a Report and
Recommendation (the “Report”) [ECF No. 13], in which he suggested that we should deny the
Plaintiff’s Motion. Magistrate Judge Strauss also issued the following warning:
The parties will have fourteen (14) days from the date of being served with a copy of
this Report and Recommendation within which to file written objections, if any, with
the Honorable Roy K. Altman, United States District Judge. Failure to timely file
objections shall bar the parties from a de novo determination by the District Judge of
an issue covered in the Report and shall bar the parties from attacking on appeal
unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions contained in this Report except upon
grounds of plain error if necessary in the interest of justice. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1);
Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985); Henley v. Johnson, 885 F.2d 790, 794 (11th Cir.
1989); 11th Cir. R. 3-1.
Id. at 4 (emphasis added). That deadline has passed, and neither party has filed written objections to
the Report. See generally Docket.
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—and finding no clear error on
the face of the R&R—we hereby ORDER and ADJUDGE as follows:
1.

The Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 13] is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED
in full.

2.

The Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorney Fees [ECF No. 10] is DENIED.

3.

This case shall remain CLOSED. All deadlines are TERMINATED, and any
pending motions are DENIED as moot.

DONE AND ORDERED in the Southern District of Florida on February 5, 2024.

_________________________________
ROY K. ALTMAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
cc:

counsel of record

2