Sunflower Condominium Association, Inc. v. Everest National Insurance Company ( 2020 )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 19-CIV-80743-RAR SUNFLOWER CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC., Plaintiff, v. EVEREST NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. ______________________________/ ORDER AFFIRMING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon United States Magistrate Judge Bruce E. Reinhart’s Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 118] (“Report”), filed on November 12, 2020. The Report recommends that the Court deny Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment [ECF No. 95] (“Motion”). See Report at 1. The Report properly notified the parties of their right to object to Magistrate Judge Reinhart’s findings and the consequences for failing to object. Id. at 14. The time for objections has passed and neither 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) (“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 (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 Reinhart’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. 118] is AFFIRMED AND ADOPTED. 2. The Motion [ECF No. 95] is DENIED. DONE AND ORDERED in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, this 1‘' day of December, 2020. RODOLFO A. RUIZ I UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE cc: Counsel of record Magistrate Judge Bruce E. Reinhart Page 2 of 2