United States v. 1010 North 30th Road, Hollywood, Florida 33021

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 20-CIV-60622-RAR

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

1010 NORTH 30TH ROAD, HOLLYWOOD, FLORIDA 33021, in rem, et al.,

Defendants. _______________________________________/

ANDRES ZAMORA, et al.,

Claimants. ____________________________________________/

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. 42] (“Report”), filed on October 22, 2020. The Report recommends that Claimants’ Motion to Dismiss the Complaint [ECF No. 12] be granted in part and denied in part. See Report at 20. Specifically, the Report recommends that Count IV be dismissed without prejudice and with leave to amend, and that the Motion otherwise be denied. Id. 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. 42] is AFFIRMED AND ADOPTED. 2. Claimants’ Motion to Dismiss the Complaint [ECF No. 12] is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. Count IV of Plaintiff's Complaint is hereby DISMISSED without prejudice with leave to amend. Should Plaintiff wish to file an Amended Complaint consistent with this Order, it must do so by December 2, 2020. 3. The remainder of Claimants’ Motion is DENIED. DONE AND ORDERED in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, this 23rd day of November, 2020.

RODOLFO A. RUIZ I UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE cc: Counsel of record Magistrate Judge Jared M. Strauss

Page 2 of 2