Sea Swivel Inc. v. ShuttleSlide LLC and Russell Taylor

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 25-cv-23581-ALTMAN SEA SWIVEL INC.,

Plaintiff, v.

SHUTTLESLIDE LLC and RUSSELL TAYLOR,

Defendants. ______________________________/

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION On May 1, 2026, the Plaintiff moved for a Preliminary Injunction (the “Motion”) [ECF No. 56]. On July 10, 2026, Magistrate Judge Yeney Hernandez issued a Report and Recommendation (the “R&R”) [ECF No. 102], finding that the Plaintiff “failed to establish a substantial likelihood of success as to its proposed claim construction.” R&R at 22. The R&R therefore “recommend[ed] that the Motion be DENIED.” Id. at 23. Under Local Magistrate Rule 4(b), parties have fourteen (14) days from the date of being served with a copy of a Report and Recommendation within which to file written objections with the relevant United States District Judge. See also FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(3). Here, the fourteen-day deadline for filing objections has passed, and no objection has been filed. See generally Docket. When a magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation has been properly objected to, district courts must review that disposition de novo. See FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(3). But, 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 that Congress’s intent was to require de novo review only where objections have been properly filed—and not, as here, when no 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 “[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). Having reviewed the R&R, the record, and the applicable law—and finding no clear error on the face of the R&R—we hereby ORDER and ADJUDGE as follows: 1. The Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 102] is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in full. 2. The Motion for Preliminary Injunction [ECF No. 56] is DENIED. DONE AND ORDERED in the Southern District “Ke ROYKALIMAN. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE cc: counsel of record