Robinson v. Requejo

• Court: District Court, S.D. Florida
• Decided: July 12, 2021
• Docket: 0:20-cv-61067
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 20-CV-61067-RAR

CARLOS ANTWON ROBINSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

OFFICER EDUARDO J. REQUEJO, et. al,

Defendants. ______________________________________/

ORDER AFFIRMING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (“Report”) [ECF No. 39] of Magistrate Judge Jared M. Strauss. The Report recommends that the Court deny Defendants’ Motion for Final Summary Judgment (“Motion”) [ECF No. 23]. See Report at 1, 14. 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)). The Supreme Court further stated nothing in the legislative history “demonstrates an intent to require the district court to give any more consideration to the magistrate’s report than the court considers appropriate.” /d. at 150. To date, no objections have been received. Thus, the Court considers it appropriate to review the Report for clear error. Having carefully reviewed the 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. 39] is AFFIRMED AND ADOPTED. 2. Defendants’ Motion [ECF No. 23] is DENIED. DONE AND ORDERED in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, this 12th day of July, 2021.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

ce: Magistrate Judge Jared M. Strauss counsel of record

Page 2 of 2