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)

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