Caplan v. La Familia Auto Sales, Inc. ( 2022 )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 21-CIV-61783-RAR HOWARD MICHAEL CAPLAN, Plaintiff, v. LA FAMILIA AUTO SALES INC., A Florida Profit Corporation, Defendant. ___________________________/ ORDER AFFIRMING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND GRANTING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S VERIFIED MOTION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES, EXPERT WITNESS FEES, AND LITIGATION EXPENSES THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon Magistrate Judge Jared M. Strauss’s Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 34] (“Report”), filed on September 19, 2022. The Report recommends that the Court grant in part and deny in part Plaintiff’s Verified Motion for Attorney’s Fees, Expert Witness Fees, and Litigation Expenses [ECF No. 32] (“Motion”). The time for objections has passed, and there are no objections to the Report. When a magistrate judge’s “disposition” has been properly objected to, district courts must review the disposition de novo. FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(3). When no party has timely objected, however, “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 note to 1983 addition (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.” (emphasis in original; alterations added)). 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 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 hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: 1. The Report [ECF No. 34] is AFFIRMED AND ADOPTED. 2. Plaintiff's Motion [ECF No. 32] is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. 3. Plaintiff awarded attorneys’ fees in the amount of $6,649.50 and an expert fee in the amount of $2,000, for which total sum let execution issue. DONE AND ORDERED in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, this 4th day of October, 2022. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Page 2 of 2