Fokiss, Inc. v. TLM Global, LLC ( 2024 )

SUONUITTEHDE RSTNA DTIESTS RDIICSTTR OIFC TF LCOORUIRDTA Case No. 24-cv-14096-KMM FOKISS, INC., doing business as STEW PETERS NETWORK, Plaintiff, v. TLM GLOBAL, LLC, et al. Defendants. / ORDER THIS CAUSE came before the Court upon Defendants’ Expedited Motion to Dissolve TRO. (“Mot.”) (ECF No. 11). The Court referred the Motion to the Honorable Ryon M. McCabe, United States Magistrate Judge, to take all necessary and proper action as required by law and/or to issue a Report and Recommendation. (ECF No. 14). On April 23, 2024, Magistrate Judge McCabe issued a Report and Recommendation, (“R&R”) (ECF No. 19), recommending that the Motion be GRANTED. Neither Defendants nor Plaintiff objected to the R&R. See (ECF Nos. 20, 21). The matter is now ripe for review.1 As set forth below, the Court ADOPTS the R&R. I. LEGAL STANDARD The Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). The Court “must determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition that has been properly objected to.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). A de novo review is therefore required if a party files “a proper, specific objection” to a factual finding contained in the report. Macort v. Prem, 1 The Court assumes the Parties’ familiarity with the facts and procedural history, which are set Inc., 208 F. App’x 781, 784 (11th Cir. 2006). “It is critical that the objection be sufficiently specific and not a general objection to the report” to warrant de novo review. Id. Yet when a party has failed to object or has not properly objected to the magistrate judge’s findings, “the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.” See Keaton v. United States, No. 14-21230-CIV, 2015 WL 12780912, at *1 (S.D. Fla. May 4, 2015); see also Lopez v. Berryhill, No. 17-CV-24263, 2019 WL 2254704, at *2 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 26, 2019) (stating that a district judge “evaluate[s] portions of the R & R not objected to under a clearly erroneous standard of review” (citing Davis v. Apfel, 93 F. Supp. 2d 1313, 1317 (M.D. Fla. 2000))). II. DISCUSSION As set forth in the R&R, Magistrate Judge McCabe recommends that Defendants’ Expedited Motion to Dissolve TRO be granted. See R&R at 4. Specifically, Magistrate Judge McCabe finds that the temporary restraining order (“TRO”) should be dissolved for non- compliance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(1)(B), which requires, among other things, that the court may issue a TRO without written or oral consent to the adverse party or its attorney only if “the movant’s attorney certifies in writing any efforts made to give notice and the reasons why it should not be required.” See id. at 3. The R&R states that the Motion requesting entry of the TRO (ECF No. 8) “lacked any sort of attorney certification to show ‘efforts made to give notice and the reasons why it should not be required’ as set forth in Rule 65(b)(1)(B).” See id. In addition, the R&R notes that by operation of Fed. R. Civ. P 65(b)(2), a TRO lasts only for 14 days unless extended for good cause. See id. at 4. In the instant case, the TRO expired on April 23, 2024, and Plaintiff has not sought an extension for good cause. See id. Accordingly, the R&R recommends this Court grant Defendants’ Expedited Motion to Dissolve TRO. See id. The Court received no objections to the aforementioned findings in the R&R. See (ECF Nos. 20, 21). Upon a review of the record, the Court finds no clear error with Magistrate Judge McCabe’s findings that the TRO should be dissolved for non-compliance with Rule 65(b)(1)(B). The Defendants’ Expedited Motion to Dissolve TRO, however, is denied as moot, given the TRO has expired and Plaintiff has not sought an extension for good cause. I. CONCLUSION Accordingly, UPON CONSIDERATION of the Motion, the pertinent portions of the record, and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 19) is ADOPTED IN PART. Defendants’ Motion (ECF No. 11) 1s DENIED AS MOOT. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this 267/_ day of April, 2024. A WA Weer ____ K. MICHAEL MOORE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE c: All counsel of record