Office of the Attorney General, State of Florida, Dept of Legal Affairs v. Moving and Storage Accounting Inc. ( 2020 )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 18-CIV-63144-RAR OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF LEGAL AFFAIRS, Plaintiff, v. MOVING AND STORAGE ACCOUNTING INC., et al., Defendants. ________________________________________/ ORDER AFFIRMING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon United States Magistrate Judge Jared M. Strauss’ Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 64] (“Report”), filed on August 14, 2020. The Report recommends that the Court grant in part and deny in part Plaintiff’s Verified Motion for Attorney’s Fees and Costs as to Defendants Maxx J. Socher, Moving Services Accounting and Storage Inc., and Dr. Schlepper Inc. [ECF No. 58] (“Motion”). See Report at 1. The Report properly notified the parties of their right to object to Magistrate Judge Strauss’s findings and the consequences for failing to object. Id. at 9. The time for objection has passed and no party filed any 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) (‘Tt 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 (Sth Cir. 1982)). Because no party has filed an objection to the Report, the Court did not conduct a de novo review of Magistrate Judge Strauss’s findings. Rather, the Court reviewed the Report for clear error. Finding none, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: 1. The Report [ECF No. 64] is AFFIRMED AND ADOPTED. 2. The Motion [ECF No. 58] is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. Plaintiff is awarded $59,256 in attorneys’ fees and $112.00 in costs. DONE AND ORDERED in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, this 31st day of August, 2020. RODOLEFO A. RUIZ I UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE cc: Counsel of record Magistrate Judge Jared M. Strauss Page 2 of 2