Lee v. GEO Secure Services, LLC ( 2022 )

SUONUITTEHDE RSTNA DTIESTS RDIICSTTR OIFC TF LCOORUIRDTA CASE NO. 22-CIV-60689-RAR MICHELE J. LEE, Plaintiff, v. GEO SECURE SERVICES, LLC, Defendant. ________________________________/ ORDER AFFIRMING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND GRANTING IN PART MOTION TO DISMISS THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon United States Magistrate Judge Strauss’s Report and Recommendation, [ECF No. 43] (“Report”), filed on November 16, 2022. The Report recommends that the Court grant in part and deny in part Defendant Geo Secure Services, LLC’s Motion to Dismiss, [ECF No. 32]. See Report at 1. The Report properly notified Plaintiff of her right to object to Magistrate Judge Strauss’s findings. Id. at 23. 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 “[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)). 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 1s hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: 1. The Report, [ECF No. 43], is AFFIRMED AND ADOPTED. 2. Plaintiff's Motion, [ECF No. 32], isGRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART, such that Counts II and IV of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint, [ECF No. 14], are DISMISSED. DONE AND ORDERED in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, this 14th day of December, 2022. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Page 2 of 2