Buckley v. Moore

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 20-CIV-61023-RAR

EDWARD MATTHEW BUCKLEY, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

EMMETT MOORE, et al.,

Defendants. _______________________________/ ORDER AFFIRMING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon Magistrate Judge Jared M. Strauss’s Report and Recommendation, [ECF No. 128] (“Report”), on Plaintiffs’ Motion to Enforce the September 3, 2021 Good Faith Court-Mediated Settlement and Request for Dismissal [ECF No. 119] (“Motion”), filed on April 1, 2022. The Report recommends that the Court GRANT Plaintiffs’ Motion in part—directing the parties to execute a stipulation of dismissal with prejudice, refusing to retain jurisdiction to further enforce the settlement agreement, and declining to impose sanctions on Defendants or afford the other forms of relief requested by the Motion. See Report at 1. The time for objections has passed, and there are no 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 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 ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: 1. The Report [ECF No. 128] is AFFIRMED AND ADOPTED. 2. Plaintiffs’ Motion [ECF No. 119] is GRANTED in part. 3. The parties are directed to file a joint stipulation of dismissal with prejudice on or before April 25, 2022. The Court will not retain jurisdiction to further enforce the September 3, 2021 settlement agreement. 4. Any pending motions are hereby DENIED AS MOOT. DONE AND ORDERED in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, this 18th day of April, 2022.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE ce: Counsel of record Magistrate Judge Jared M. Strauss

Page 2 of 2