HERNANDEZ v. SAMS EAST, INC. ( 2021 )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 20-CV-61648-RAR BRENDA HERNANDEZ, and LUIS LUQUE, Plaintiffs, v. SAM’S EAST, INC., Defendant. _________________________________/ AMENDED ORDER AFFIRMING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION1 THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon United States Magistrate Judge Jared M. Strauss’s Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 80] (“Report”), filed on September 5, 2021. The Report recommends that Defendant’s Motion to Tax Attorneys’ Fees and Costs [ECF No. 68] be GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. 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 7. 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 1 This Order is identical in all respects to the prior Order Affirming Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 83] apart from a scrivener’s error which was corrected on Page 2. See Notice of Scrivener’s Error [ECF No. 85]. 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 vy. 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 “[fJailure 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)). To date, no objections have been received. Thus, the Court considers it appropriate to review the Report for clear error. Having carefully reviewed Defendant’s Motion, the Report, the factual record, the applicable law, and being otherwise fully advised, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: 1. The Report [ECF No. 80] is AFFIRMED AND ADOPTED. 2. The Motion [ECF No. 68] is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Defendant is awarded attorney’s fees in the amount of $14,326.00 and non-taxable costs in the amount of $1,745.00, for a total award of $16,071.00. 3. The prior Order Affirming Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 83] is VACATED. DONE AND ORDERED in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, this 26th day of October, 2021. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE ce: Counsel of record Magistrate Judge Jared M. Strauss Page 2 of 2