Cedar Rapids Lodge & Suites, LLC et al v. JFS Development, Inc. et al

Filing 193

ORDER adopting 183 Report and Recommendations: The 166 Motion for Sanctions against Plaintiff's Attorney Robert H. Miller filed by John F Seibert is denied. Signed by Chief Judge Linda R Reade on 11/30/2011 (copy w/NEF to Dft Vosburg via US Mail). (skm)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA
CEDAR RAPIDS DIVISION

CEDAR RAPIDS LODGE & SUITES,
LLC et al.,
Plaintiffs,

No. 09-CV-175-LRR

vs.

ORDER

JFS DEVELOPMENT, INC., f/k/a JCS
DEVELOPMENT, INC., et al.,
Defendants.
____________________
The matters before the court are Defendant John F. Seibert’s pro se “Motion for
Sanctions Against Plaintiffs’ Attorney Robert H. Miller for Improper Conduct of an
Officer of the Court” (“Motion”) (docket no. 166) and United States Magistrate Judge Jon
S. Scoles’s Report and Recommendation (docket no. 183) regarding the Motion. On
October 4, 2011, Seibert filed the Motion, and on November 7, 2011, Judge Scoles filed
the Report and Recommendation. In the Report and Recommendation, Judge Scoles
recommends that the court deny the Motion. The Report and Recommendation states that
“within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy of this Report and
Recommendation, any party may serve and file written objections with the district court.”
Report and Recommendation at 5.
The time to object to the Report and Recommendation has expired. LR 72.1 (“A
party who objects to or seeks review or reconsideration of . . . a magistrate judge’s report
and recommendation must file specific, written objections . . . within 14 days after service
of the . . . report and recommendation.); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2) (“Within 14 days after
being served with a copy of the recommended disposition, a party may serve and file
specific written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations.”). Seibert has

not filed any objections to the Report and Recommendation and has therefore waived his
right to a de novo review of the Report and Recommendation. See Griffini v. Mitchell, 31
F.3d 690, 692 (8th Cir. 1994) (“Appellant’s failure to file any objections waived his right
to de novo review by the district court of any portion of the report and recommendation
of the magistrate judge as well as his right to appeal from the findings of fact contained
therein.”); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note (“When no timely
objection is filed, the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face
of the record in order to accept the recommendation.”).
The court finds no clear error in the Report and Recommendation. Seibert failed
to file a brief with the Motion and offers no evidence to support his claims. Accordingly,
the court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation (docket no. 183).
Seibert’s Motion for Sanctions (docket no. 166) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 30th day of November, 2011.

2

Defendant