Wardak v. Goolden

Filing 118

ORDER AFFIRMING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION. ORDER denying 108 Motion for Attorney Fees; denying 109 Motion for Attorney Fees; Adopting 117 Report and Recommendations. Signed by Judge Rodolfo A. Ruiz, II on 11/16/2020. See attached document for full details. (amb)

Download PDF
Case 1:19-cv-21121-RAR Document 118 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/17/2020 Page 1 of 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 19-CIV-21121-RAR HAMED WARDAK, Plaintiff, v. SARAH GOOLDEN, et al., Defendants. ____________________________________________/ ORDER AFFIRMING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Becerra’s Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 117] (“Report”), filed on September 8, 2020. The Report recommends the Court deny Defendants’ respective Motions for Attorney’s Fees and Costs [ECF Nos. 108, 109]. The time for objections has passed, and there are no 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.”). 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 Case 1:19-cv-21121-RAR Document 118 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/17/2020 Page 2 of 2 Cir. 1988) (citing Nettles v. Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404, 410 (5th Cir. 1982)). Because there are no objections to the Report, the Court did not conduct a de novo review. Rather, the Court reviewed the Report for clear error. Finding none, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: 1. The Report [ECF No. 117] is AFFIRMED AND ADOPTED. 2. Defendant Sarah Goolden’s Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs [ECF No. 108] is DENIED. Defendant Brian Cavanaugh’s Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs [ECF No. 109] is DENIED. DONE AND ORDERED in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, this 16th day of November, 2020. _________________________________ RODOLFO A. RUIZ II UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE cc: Counsel of record Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Becerra 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?